COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

AVEPY  -INE  ARTS  RESTRICTED 

IliillillH 


E  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.    (    REroRT 
AR01 395700  j  No.  549. 


WILKINS'  OR  WILLETT'S  POINT  INVESTIGATION. 


June  8,  1858. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  Haskix,  from  the  Select  Committeej  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

Extract  from  the  Journal  of  Wilkins'  Point  Investigating  Committee, 

June  7,  1858, 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chairman,  the  following  preamble  and  resolution 
were  unanimously  adopted  : 

The  views  of  the  several  members  of  this  committee  not  agreeing  so 
as  to  enable  their  joining  in  a  majority  report  upon  the  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances referred  to  and  inquired  into  before  them, 

Resolved,  That  the  several  members  of  the  committee  be,  and  they 
are  hereby,  authorized  to  report  to  the  House  a  statement  or  report  of 
their  views  and  conclusions  upon  the  subject  referred. 

JAS.  B.  SHERIDAN, 
Stenographer  to  the  Committee. 


MR.  HASKIN'S  VIEAVS  ON  THE  WILLETT'S  POINT 
INVESTIGATION. 

The  undersigned,  chairman  of  the  Select  Committee  appointed  hy  the 
Rouse  of  Representatives  on  the  ^th  of  February,  1858,  to  investigate 
the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  luith  the  sale  and  purchase  of 
propjerty  at  Willdns'  or  WillttVs  Point,  Long  Island,  Neiu  York,  for 
fortification  purposes  in  1857,  respectfully  reports  that  the  resolution 
under  ivhich  the  committee  have  acted  is  as  follows : 

"THIRTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS,  FIRST  SESSION. 
^  ^CONGRESS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

''In  the  House  of  Representatives,  February   9,  1858. 

'^  On  motion  of  Mr.  Haskin, 
^^  Resolved,  That  a  Special  Committee,  consisting  of  five  members, 
be  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  facts  or  circumstances 
connected  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  a  tract  of  land  at  Wilkins'  or 
Willett's  Point,  in  the  county  of  Queens,  State  of  New  York,  opposite 
Fort  Scliuyler,  purchased  by  the  government  for  fortification  purposes, 
during  the  year  1857  ;  and  that  said  committee  be,  and  they  are  here- 
by, authorized  to  send  for  persons  and  papers." 


2  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S    POINT    INVESTIGATION. 

The  committee  held  its  first  session  on  the  25th  day  of  February. 
1858,  when,  on  motion  of  the  chairman,  James  B  Sheridan_,  esq., 
was  requested  to  act  as  the  stenographer  of  the  committee  ;  and,  after 
a  brief  statement  from  the  chairman  of  the  causes  which  induced,  and 
the  objects  expected  to  be  attained  by,  the  investigation,  it  was  re- 
solved that  the  Hon.  John  B.  Floyd,  the  Secretary  of  War,  be  re- 
quested to  furnish  the  committee  with  the  correspondence  in  his  depart- 
ment in  relation  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  investigation,  and  also  to 
attend  before  them,  and  give  such  other  information  upon  the  subject 
as  he  was  willing  to  impart.  It  will  be  seen  by  the  resolution  ap- 
pointing the  committee,  that  ^Hhe  facts  and  circumstances  connected 
wdth  the  sale  and  purchase"  were  ordered  to  be  inquired  into,  and 
hence  great  latitude  was  allowable  and  necessary  in  the  examination 
of  all  the  witnesses  who  were  produced  and  examined  before  them. 
Before  the  investigation  was  ordered,  newspapers,  published  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  had  teemed  wdth  articles  designed  to  satisfy  the 
public  judgment  that  a  combination  of  individuals  connected  directly 
or  remotely  with  the  government  had  been  formed,  and  been  success- 
ful in  their  operations,  in  selling  the  property  in  question  to  the  gov- 
ernment at  an  exorbitant  and  unjust  price.  The  undersigned  com- 
menced his  labors  with  the  stern  determination  to  elicit  all  the  facts 
and  circumstances  in  relation  to  the  matter,  without  regard  to  whom 
it  might  affect,  and  though  in  so  doing  he  had  to  examine  a  large 
number  of  witnesses  without  any  previous  knowledge  of  what  testi- 
mony would  be  given,  save  from  piiblic  rumor,  and  what  he  might 
elicit  upon  a  rigid  and  scrutinizing  examination,  he  has  the  satis- 
faction of  knowing  that  his  labors  and  efforts  have  not  been  fruit- 
less in  obtaining  valuable  information,  and  of  believing  that  such 
^M'acts  and  circumstances,"  have  been  elicited  in  connexion  with  the 
transaction,  as  to  warrant  him  in  the  opinion  that  the  exposures 
made  by  the  publication  of  the  evidence  herewith  submitted  will,  to 
some  if  not  a  great  extent,  prevent  the  success  of  similar  combi- 
nations in  the  future,  and  induce  the  various  departments  of  our 
government  hereafter  to  be  more  cautious  and  prudent  in  the  man- 
agement of  such  affairs,  under  the  tear  of  public  exposure  and  a 
rigid  accountability. 

In  order  that  the  House  of  Representatives  may  comprehend  his 
conclusions  in  this  report,  the  undersigned  submits  the  following 
narrative,  as  brief  as  the  importance  of  the  subject  will  permit,  of  the 
"facts  and  circumstances"  as  they  have  been  presented  to  the  com- 
mittee by  the  evidence  adduced,  followed  by  a  brief  statement  of  his 
conclusions  thereon. 

The  act  of  Congress  passed  March  3,  1857,  making  general  appro- 
priations for  fortifications,  contained  the  following  provision,  "for  the 
commencement  of  a  fortification  op[)Osite  Fort  Schuyler,  one  hundred 
and  fii'ty  thousand  dollars." 

In  pursuance  of  this  provision  General  Joseph  G.  Totten,  the  head 
•of  the  Engineer  Bureau  at  Washington,  commenced  operations  by  ad- 
'dressing  the  following  letter,  to  the  engineer  in  charge  of  the  forti- 
^cations  at  New  York^  Major  Barnard: 


f 

1 27  WILKINS'    OR   -WILLETT'S    POINT    INVESTIGATION'.  3 

,    f^  [Confidential.] 

]QCo  Engineer  Department, 

/  ^  j^cy  Washington,  March  12,  1857. 

Sir:  Congress  having  appropriated,  by  act  of  3d  March,  1857, 
'^for  the  commencement  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New  York, 
$150,000,"  I  have  to  request  you  to  visit  the  locality,  at  the  earliest 
moment  your  other  duties  will  permit,  and  examine  the  ground  with 
a  view  to  the  selection  of  a  site,  and  to  enter  into  negotiations  with 
the  owners  for  its  purchase. 

Herewith  is  sent  a  tracing  of  a  survey  of  both  sides  of  the  East 
river  in  the  vicinity  of  the  proposed  work,  from  which  you  will  per- 
ceive that  considerable  latitude  in  the  location  of  the  fort  is  allowable, 
either  "  Wilkins'  Point,"  the  neighborhood  of  the  ^' old  fort,"  or 
*' White  Stone  Point,"  affording  eligible  sites.  Advantage  should 
be  taken  of  a  circumstance  so  favorable  in  negotiating  for  the  neces- 
sary land^  so  as  to  bring  the  owners  in  competition  and  secure  fair 
terms  to  the  government. 

The  quantity  of  land  to  be  purchased  will  depend  on  the  cost,  and 
also  on  the  configuration  of  the  site  determined  upon.  Should  Wil- 
kins'  Point  be  selected,  the  United  States  should,  if  possible,  obtain 
all  beyond  the  narrow  connecting  neck.  At  the  "old  fort"  the 
limits  may  be,  say,  a  quarter  by  half  a  mile  ;  and  at  "White  Stone 
Point"  the  boundaries  may  be  the  shorelines,  extending,  say,  600 
yards  from  the  point,  and  a  straight  line  connecting  their  further  ex- 
tremities, thus  enclosing  a  triangular  space. 

You  will  report  to  this  office,  as  early  as  practicable,  the  results  of 
your  examination  of  the  ground,  and  a  statement  of  the  terms  on 
which  the  owners  of  the  sites  indicated  will  sell  the  land. 

You  will  plainly  understand  that  the  more  eligible  position  has 
been  deemed  to  be  "  Wilkins'  Point,"  and  a  project  for  that  position 
was  made  more  than  thirty  years  ago.  Still,  in  fact,  that  is  not  the 
only  p  jint,  and  the  owner  of  Wilkins'  should  be  made  to  understand 
this  clearly ;  because  it  is  thought  that  it  was  bought  by  him,  and 
built  upon,  in  the  expectation  of  forcing  the  government  to  purchase 
at  a  large  price. 

Your  good  management,    which  should  begin  at  once,  will  make 
the  difference  of  a  good  many  thousand  dollars,  I  have  no  doubt. 
I  am,  &c., 

J.  a.  TOTTEN, 
Brevet  Brigadier  General ,  and  Colonel  Engineers, 

On  the  same  day  General  Totten  addressed  Major  Barnard  another 
letter,  enclosing  a  draft  of  a  law  which  he  requested  him  to  have 
passed  by  the  legislature  of  New  York,  ceding  jurisdiction  over  lands 
to  be  purchased  by  the  United  States  lor  fortification  purposes  in  the 
State  of  New  York.  In  this  letter  he  stated  that  no  precise  site  had 
been  determined  upon  by  the  department  for  the  fortification  opposite 
Fort  Schuyler. — (See  Appendix  B.) 

On  the  20th  March,  1857,  Major  Barnard  wrote  General  Totten, 
enclosing  him  the  draft  of  a  proposed  act  for  the  cession  of  jurisdic^ 


4  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

tion,  drawn  by  Mr.  McKeon,  tlie  United  States  district  attorney  at 
New  York. — (See  Appendix  C.) 

On  the  21st  Marcli,  1857,  General  Totten  wrote  Major  Barnard, 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  his  letter  of  the  20th,  urging  that  the 
act  of  cession  should  contain  a  provision  ceding  jurisdiction  over  the 
contiguous  shores,  waters,  &c.,  so  as  to  secure  necessary  wharfing,  and 
also  urging  the  distance  of  400  yards  from  the  shore  as  the  limit. — 
(See  Appendix  D.) 

Following  this  is  a  letter  from  Major  Barnard  to  General  Totten, 
which  appears  in  the  statement  of  Hon.  John  B.  Floyd,  to  which 
General  Totten  replied,  in  a  letter  dated  March  26,  1857. — (See  Ap- 
pendix E.) 

On  the  27th  or  29th  March,  1857,  Major  Barnard  wrote  General 
Totten,  saying:  ''I  have  no  doubt  the  course  directed  as  to  the 
manner  of  obtaining  possession  of  this  property  (by  condemnation  and 
an  appraisment  by  jury)  is  the  best,  and  was  prepared  to  recom- 
mend it  myself." — (See  Appendix  F.) 

On  the  28th  March,  1857,  Major  Barnard  wrote  to  General  Totten, 
saying:  "  I  have  good  reason  to  believe  that,  if  authorized  between 
now  and  the  1st  of  April,  I  can  secure  the  Wissmann  property  for 
$100,000.  After  the  1st  it  may  not  be  so  easy,  but  I  doubt  whether 
Mr.  Irving's  purchase  will  amount  to  anything,  as  it  is  doubted 
w^hether  he  can  pay  the  $5,000." — (See  Appendix  G.) 

On  the  28th  March,  1857,  General  Totten  wrote  Major  Barnard  a 
letter,  enclosing  the  copy  of  an  act  authorizing  the  condemnation  of 
Fort  Porter,  as  showing  the  proper  form  to  be  observed  in  drawing 
the  act  for  condeming  such  lands  as  the  government  might  select  for 
a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. — (See  Appendix  H.) 

On  the  30th  March,  1857,  General  Totten  wrote  to  Major  Barnard 
a  letter  directing  him  to  proceed  to  Albany  and  obtain  the  passage  of 
an  act  for  the  condemnation  of  such  lands  as  the  government  might 
select  for  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler.  In  this  letter  he  says  :  "The 
Secretary  of  War  considers  it  indispensable  to  procure,  if  practicable, 
this  law  for  the  condemnation  oi  the  land  opposite  Fort  Schuyler  ;  the 
question  whether  recourse  shall  be  had  to  it  being  left  for  future  con- 
sideration."— (See  Appendix  I.) 

On  the  31st  March,  1857,  Major  Barnard  telegraphed  to  Captain 
H.  G.  Wright,  in  charge  of  the  Engineer  Bureau,  under  General  Tot- 
ten, as  follows:  "Sir:  It  will  be  most  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of 
the  United  States  if  the  land  passes  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  as 
it  will  do  to-morrow,  if  I  am  not  authorized  to  secure  it  to-day.  I 
beg  my  letter  of  yesterday  may  be  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  a  despatch  sent  me  to-day.  Letter  ot  March  30th  received." — 
(See  Appendix  J.) 

On  the  1st  Apiil,  1857,  General  Totten  wrote  to  Major  Barnard  as 
follows:  "Sir:  A  reply  to  your  telegrajdiic  despatch  of  yesterday, 
in  reference  to  securing  the  land  o])posite  Fort  Schuyler,  was  the 
same  day  sent  by  telegra])h  to  your  address,  No.  4  Bowling  Green,  in 
the  words  cited  below:  'I  have  seen  the  Secretary,  who  adheres  to 
formei-  instructions.     He  will  not  agree   to  paying  so  much  for  the 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  5 

land  without  further  investigation,  and  perhaps  a  condemnation.     The 
act  of  condemnation  should  he  promptly  secured.'  " — (See  appendix  K.) 

On  the  6th  April,  1857,  Major  Barnard  wrote  to  General  Totten, 
informing  him  of  the  progress  making  in  obtaining  the  act  of  condem- 
nation.— (See  Appendix  L.) 

On  the  loth  April,  1857,  Major  Barnard  wrote  to  General  Totten 
as  follows  :  ''  My  dear  General :  Before  taking  any  steps  with  regard 
to  Wilkins'  Point,  it  will  be  best  that  you  should  know  the  proba- 
bility that  Cryder's  place  can  be  bought  for  much  less  than  I  estimated 
in  my  letter  of  March  24th,  (§114,000.)  I  was  mistaken  in  supposing 
that  he  considered  the  sum  he  had  expended  (§40,000)  on  his  house 
and  grounds  as  what  he  thought  he  ought  to  be  refunded  for  improve- 
ments. I  have  no  authority  to  say,  but  I  have  reason  to  believe,  that 
his  place  might  be  bought  for  about  $80,000." — (See  Appendix  M.) 

On  the  25th  April,  1857,  Major  Barnard  wrote  to  General  Totten 
enclosing  the  act  but  recently  passed  (April  15th)  for  the  cession  of 
jurisdiction  and  condemnation  of  such  land  as  the  government  might 
select  for  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. — (See  Appendix  N.) 

The  government,  through  the  engineer  department,  as  will  be  seen 
in  one  of  the  above  extracts,  and  by  the  evidence  of  the  Hon.  John 
W.  Lawrence,  might  have  purchased  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point 
down  to  and  on  the  1st  of  April,  1857,  for  $100,000. 

Wissmann,  the  then  occupant  and  owner,  (the  title  being  vested  in 
his  wife  by  her  trustee,  a  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn,)  was  anxious  to  sell 
to  the  United  States,  but  his  price  being  considered  exorbitant  by 
General  Totten  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  measures  had  been  initiated 
and  were  progressing  to  have  an  act  passed  by  the  legislature  of  the 
State  of  New  York  for  the  condemnation  of  the  property  and  its  ap- 
praisement by  a  jury.  While  Major  Barnard  was  actively  engaged 
in  procuring  the  passage  of  this  act,  on  the  3d  of  April,  1857,  a 
written  proposal  or  offer  to  sell  the  property  was  prepared  and  ap- 
proved by  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  and  then  signed  by  a  Mr.  George 
Irving,  the  intimate  friend  of  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  in  which  George 
Irving  ''offers  for  sale  the  neck  of  land  known  as  Willett's  (or  Wil- 
kins') Neck,  situated  on  the  west  side  of  Little  Neck  bay^  and  directly 
opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  in  Westchester  county,  at  the  confluence  of 
the  East  river  and  Long  Island  Sound."  The  offer  further  states: 
*'The  neck  contains  (exclusive  of  2G  acres  belonging  to  Mr.  Day) 
about  130  acres  of  land.  It  will  be  sold  (exclusive  of  Mr.  Day's  land) 
for  the  sum  of  $200,000,  payable  as  follows :  $115,000  on  the  1st  day 
of  July,  1857  ;  the  balance  of  $85,000  may  remain  on  mortgage  for 
five  years,  if  desired.  This  offer  is  to  remain  binding  on  George  Ir- 
ving until  the  14th  April,  1857.  The  title  is  indisputable,  and  no 
person  has  power  to  sell  it  but  George  Irving." — (See  Appendix  0.) 

On  the  morning  of  the  4th  April,  1857,  as  appears  by  their  hand- 
writing in  the  books  at  Willards'  hotel,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  and  John 
C.  Mather  arrived  in  Washington  and  stopped  at  Willards'  hotel. 
The  undersigned  has  reason  to  believe  that  this  offer  signed  by  Geoi'ge 
Irving  was  conveyed  to  the  Secretary  of  War  by  John  C.  Mather, 
who  was  on  intimate  terms  with  the  Secretary.  The  undersigned  also 
has  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Mather  remained  in  Washington  until 


6  WILKINS'    OK   WiLLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

the  13th  April,  1857,  on  which  day  a  letter  was  prepared  and  signed, 
hearing  that  date,  hy  the  Secretary  of  War,  appointing  Mr.  Augustus 
8chell  a  commissioner  to  ascertain  and  report  the  value  of  this  prop- 
erty to  the  War  Department. — (See  Governor  Floyd's  testimony.) 

In  the  opinion  of  the  undersigned,  this  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War 
was  conveyed  hy  Mr.  Mather  to  Mr.  Augustus  Schell,  in  New  York, 
as  it  appears  that  on  the  day  the  letter  bears  date  Mr.  Mather  paid 
his  hotel  hill  and  left.  It  may  he  well  to  remark  here  that  the  under- 
signed does  not  see  any  good  reason  why  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  should 
have  been  selected  as  a  commissioner,  inasmuch  as  Hon.  Heman  J.  Red- 
field,  a  gentleman  of  acknoAvledged  integrity  and  ability,  who  has  oc- 
cupied a  number  of  distinguished  positions  in  New  York,  w^as  then  the 
collector  of  the  port  of  New  York.  The  selection  of  Mr.  Schell,  there- 
fore, as  a  commissioner,  could  not  have  been  made  because  he  held  an 
official  position  under  the  government,  for  he  did  not  enter  upon  his 
duties  as  collector  until  the  1st  July,  1857,  but  his  appointment  must 
have  been  based  upon  other  and  personal  reasons. 

On  the  day  following  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Mather  and  this  letter  in 
New  York,  the  15th  April,  1857,  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  who  had 
been  in  Washington  with  Mather,  as  the  undersigned  believes  upon 
business  connected  with  this  transaction,  did,  in  company  with  George 
Irving,  proceed  to  the  residence  of  Mr.  Wissmann,  the  then  owner 
and  occupant  of  Wilkins'  Point,  and  pay  him  $1,000  which  he  had 
borrowed  from  Richard  Schell  for  the  purpose.  He  took  a  receipt  from 
Wissmann  for  this  money,  and  made  an  agreement  with  him  to  the 
effect  that  upon  the  payment  of  $§,000  in  addition,  on  the  28th  of 
April  following,  he,  Wissmann,  would  convey  the  property  (briefly 
therein  described,  without  giving  the  acres,)  to  George  Irving,  who 
was  to  pay  $130,000  for  it;  $85,000  of  which  was  to  remain  on  a 
mortgage  ibr  five  years,  at  seven  per  cent,  interest,  ^'if  desired^"  and 
the  balance  to  be  paid  on  or  before  the  1st  day  of  July  following. 

This  receipt  and  agreement  were  both  signed  by  Frederick  Wiss- 
mann, and  not  by  his  wife  and  her  trustee,  and  witnessed  by  Pros])er  M. 
Wetmore,  who  permeates  the  whole  transaction,  and  whose  industry 
and  activity  in  the  matter  is  strikingly  exhibited  on  this  day  in  the 
promptness  with  which  he  proceeded  with  the  agreement  from 
Wissraann's  residence  to  the  justice  of  the  peace,  where  it  was  ac- 
knowledged, and  from  thence  to  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  Queens 
county.  Long  Island,  at  Jamaica,  where  it  was  on  the  same  day, 
15th  April,  1857,  recorded.  All  this  time  the  Engineer  Bureau, 
re])resented  by  General  Totten  and  Major  Barnard,  were  engaged  in 
Albany,  New  York,  in  having  the  act  passed  for  the  condemnaiion  of  the 
property  by  a  jury,  and  the  act  was  passed  on  the  same  day  the  $1,000 
was  paid,  and  the  recei])t  and  agreement  were  signed  by  Wissmann. 
Irving  in  his  offer  of  the  3d  April,  1857,  alleged  that  he  only  had 
authority  to  sell,  when  the  testimony  shows  conclusively  that  he  had 
no  legal  agreement  at  the  time,  or  right  to  sell  or  transfer  the  property 
to  the  government  or  anybody  else,  and  that  he  did  not  become  pos- 
sessed of  such  right  until  the  15th  day  of  April,  1857,  and  not  even  then 
if  Wissmann's  wife  and  her  trustee  had  re})udiated  the  contract.  Ten 
days  after  the  date  of  this  offer,  and  two  days  previous  to  the  payment 


WILKINS'    OR    WILLETT'S   POIXT   INVESTIGATION.  7 

of  any  money  by  Irving  to  Wissmann,   the  Secretary  of  War  had 
ordered  a  commission  to  examine  into  and  judge  of  its  fairness. 

It  will  be  seen  b}^  the  evidence  that  about  the  middle  of  March, 
1857,  when  the  agent  of  the  engineer  in  charge  at  New  York,  Mr.  Van 
Kostrand,  was  honestly  and  faithfully  making  such  inquiries  as  might 
bring  the  department  to  a  knowledge  of  the  property  opposite  Fort 
Schuyler,  its  value,  and  by  whom  it  was  owned,  he  met  JProsper  M. 
Wetmore  and  enquired  of  him  the  value  of  the  Wilkins'  Point  pro- 
perty and  other  property  in  the  vicinity,  telling  him  at  the  same  time 
that  he  was  enquiring  in  behalf  of  the  government,  which  intended 
buying  a  site  for  a  fort  somewhere  there.  Wetmore  replied  that  pro- 
perty was  held  at  very  high  prices  in  the  neighborhood,  and  that  very 
little  was  for  sale 

The  undersigned  is  of  opinion  that  upon  this  intimation  or  state- 
ment from  Van  Nostrand,  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  initiated  the  com- 
bination which  was  subsequently  successful  in  obtaining  from  the 
government  $200,000  for  the  property.  Mr.  Wetmore  calied  upon  his 
friend,  Richard  Schell,  who  w^as  also  the  friend  of  the  Secretary  oi 
War,  informed  him  of  the  fact  that  the  government  intended  making 
the  purchase,  and  negotiated  with  him  a  loan,  of  which  he  then  re- 
ceived $1,000  to  speculate  in  the  purchase  of  this  property. 

The  sudden  change  of  the  Secretary  of  War  in  his  course,  in  first 
refusing  to  take  the  property  up  to  and  on  the  1st  of  April,  1857,  for 
§100,000,  and  insisting  on  a  condemnation,  and  then  seriously  con- 
sidering the  offer  of  Irving,  at  $200,000,  and  appointing  a  commis- 
sioner to  ascertain  its  fairness,  can  in  no  way  be  accounted  for  by  the 
undersigned  other  than  that  lie  had  in  the  meantime,  in  an  inter- 
view with  Richard  Schell,  in  March,  1857,  when  that  gentleman 
was  in  Washington  and  saw  him,  had  this  offer  of  Irving  and  the 
parties  connected  with  it  explained  to  him. 

Upon  the  payment  of  the  $1,000  by  Irving  and  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more, on  the  loth  April,  1857,  ostensibly  paid  on  the  part  of  Irving, 
and  the  agreement  then  made  with  Wissmann,  the  foundation  of  the 
plan  was  laid  by  a  combination  of  ''  speculators,"  for  the  sale  of  this 
property  to  the  government,  ior  the  enormous  price  of  $200,000. 
The  undersigned  regrets  that  the  successful  efforts  of  these  ''  specula- 
tors "  in  a  great  measure,  to  cover  up  the  transaction,  has  prevented 
all  of  tliem  being  directly  imi)licated  in  it,  although  the  evidence  is 
nearly  direct  as  to  the  particular  individuals  engaged  in  it. 

In  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Augustus 
Schell  proceeded  to  make  his  examinations  as  to  the  value  of  the  pro- 
perty ;  but  even  in  this  examination  and  its  results  his  friend  Prosper 
M.  Wetmore  appears  from  the  evidence  to  have  been  the  leading  and 
controlling  spirit.  He  first  wrote  a  certificate  stating  the  property  to 
be  worth  per  acre  a  sum  which,  in  the  aggregate,  would  make  its 
value  (say  110  acres)  $267,500,  and  then  induced  four  auctioneers,  by 
the  promise  of  a  fee,  to  sign  it,  without  first  examining  the  property 
or  anything  else. 

He  then  met,  in  company  with  Mr.  Irving,  and  by  appointment,  Mr. 
Augustus  Schell  and  Mr.  Isaac  V.  Fowler,  at  Flushing,  and  with  them 
drove  down,  in  Irving's  carriage,  to  Mr.  Wissmann's  to  make  an  exami- 
nation of  the  property.     After  walking  over  the  place,  and  enjoying 


8  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETt's   POINT   INYESTIGATION. 

a  collation,  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler  returned  to  New 
York  in  company  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore.  After,  or  shortly  pre- 
previous  to  this,  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  called  upon  Mr.  Cryder,  who 
owned  Cryder's  Point,  about  a  mile  from  Wilkins'  Point.  Mr.  Cryder's 
property  contained  about  seventy-three  acres,  and  w^as  highly  im- 
proved with  fine  dwellings  upon  it,  which  had  been  erected  at  a  great 
expense.  He  inquired  of  Mr.  Cryder  the  value  of  his  own  property, 
which  the  Engineer  Bureau  had  designated  as  one  of  the  sites  which 
might  be  selected  for  the  fortification,  and  also  the  value  of  Wilkins' 
Point.  According  to  Mr.  Augustas  Schell's  testimony,  Mr.  Cryder 
expressed  a  willingness  to  sell  his  property  to  the  government  for 
|1,100  an  acre,  including  improvements  ;  and,  according  to  Mr.  Cry- 
der's testimony,  he  informed  Mr.  Schell,  who,  as  he  stated  to  him,  ap- 
plied on  behalf  of  the  government,  that  his  opinion  of  Wilkins'  Point 
was,  that  it  was  ivorth  to  the  government  from  $700  to  $800  an  acre. 

Mr,  Augustus  Schell,  as  appears  from  the  evidence,  also  called 
upon  Andrew  H.  Mickle,  an  ex-mayor  of  the  city  of  New  York,  and 
requested  him  to  sign  a  letter  putting  a  valuation  upon  this  property, 
which  Mickle  refused  to  do,  although,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Augustus 
Schell,  he  wrote  or  signed  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Schell  speaking 
in  general  terms  of  the  beauty  of  the  location  of  Wilkins'  Point,  and 
its  ada])tability  for  gentlemen's  country  seats. — (See  Appendix  T.) 

Mr.  Augustus  Schell  also  called  upon  Mr.  A.  J.  Bleecker,  one  of  the 
best  known  and  most  reliable  real  estate  brokers  and  auctioneers  in  New 
York  city,  upon  the  subject  of  the  value  of  this  property.  Mr.  Bleecker 
testified  that  about  the  month  of  April,  1857,  General  Wetmore  called 
upon  him  and  requested  from  him  a  certificate  of  the  value  of  this 
point,  stating  the  amount  per  acre  at  which  he  wished  him  to  estimate 
it,  which  was  $1,500,  $1,600,  or  $2,000,  but  that  he  told  him  dis- 
tinctly that  he  could  not  bring  his  ideas  of  the  value  of  the  ])roperty 
up  to  any  such  price  and  would  not  sign  ;  that  about  a  month  after 
Mr.  Schell,  the  collector,  called  upon  him  to  know  if  he  had  given  a 
valuation  of  the  property,  or  was  acquainted  with  its  value,  and  he 
told  him  that  he  had  refused  to  certify  to  the  high  prices  fixed  as  the 
value  of  the  property  ;  that  he  had  refused  General  Wetmore,  and  re- 
ferred him  to  Mr.  Mickle  and  Mr.  Cryder  to  ascertain  its  value. 

On  the  24th  day  of  A])ril,  1857,  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  prepared  his  re- 
ply to  the  Secretary  of  War,  which  was  signed  by  Isaac  V.  Fowler,  as 
well  as  himself,  certifying  the  property  to  be  worth  $200,000. 

The  undersigned  has  reason  to  believe  that  this  reply  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  was  carried  to  him  by  John  C.  Mather,  as  it  appears  that 
Mr.  Mather  arrived  in  Washington  on  the  25th  of  April,  1857,  from 
an  entry  to  that  eff'ect  in  his  own  handwriting  in  the  books  of  Willards' 
Hotel. 

The  Secretary  of  War  received  the  reply  of  Augustus  Schell  on  the 
25th,  and  on  the  28th,  (Sunday  intervening,)  he  endorsed  upon  the  back 
of  Irving's  oiler  the  following  :  "If  the  within  mentioned  tract  of  land 
shall  amount  upon  actual  survey  to  about  the  quantity  re[)resented,  to 
wit,  from  100  to  130  acres,  and  the  title  thereto  shall  prove  to  be 
good,  as  ascertained  by  the  attorney  of  the  United  States  at  New  York, 
then  I  accept  the  within  offer  of  sale." — (See  Appendix  0.) 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT    INVESTIGATION.  9 

On  the  28tli  of  April,  1857,  John  C.  Mather  paid  his  hotel  bill  and 
left,  and  the  undersigned  believes  he  was  the  bearer  of  the  information 
of  this  acceptance  to  "  the  parties"  in  New  York. 

On  the  28th  of  April,  1857,  there  was  due  $9,000  to  Mr.  Wissmann 
from  George  Irving,  according  to  their  agreement,  but  it  was  not  then 
paid  ;  and  subsequently,  on  the  9th  day  of  May,  1857,  Mr.  Mather 
returned  to  Washington  and  remained  until  the  15th,  when,  without 
any  letter  from  George  Irving  calling  for  it,  in  reply,  a  letter  was 
addressed  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  May  13,  1857,  to  George 
Irving,  notifying  him  that,  having,  accepted  his  offer  ''and  also  the 
terms  for  the  payment  of  the  purchase  money,  (§200,000,)  I  have  to 
inform  you  that  the  first  payment  on  the  land,  viz  :  $115,000,  will  be 
paid  to  you,  or  your  order,  on  the  first  day  of  July  next."  The  first 
day  of  July  was  the  day  on  which  he  was  to  pay  $35,000  to  Wissmann, 
by  the  agreement  of  the  parties,  but  subsequently,  by  arrangement, 
the  time  was  extended  to  the  10th  July,  1857,  when  possession  was 
to  be  given  to  him.  After  this  letter  was  written,  the  §9,000  was 
paid  some  time  in  the  month  of  June,  1857,  by  Richard  Schell,  through 
William  C.  Wetmore,  the  lawyer  in  the  transaction. 

About  the  date  of  this  letter,  and  on  the  14th  day  of  May,  1857, 
a  deed  for  this  property  was  executed  between  Mr.  Wissmann,  liis  wife, 
and  her  trustee,  and  George  Irving — two  mortgages  remaining  upon 
the  property  to  the  amount  of  §18,750.  Irving  also  gave  two  mort- 
gages to  Mrs.  Wissmann  and  her  trustee — one  for  §85,000,  dated  May 
12,  1857,  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  agreement  to  sell  to  Irving, 
and  payable  according  to  that  agreement,  (acknowledged  for  record 
May  15,  1857,)  and  the  other  mortgage  for  §15,502,  of  the  same  date, 
acknowledged  for  record  July  2,  1857,  payable  on  the  10th  day  of 
July  following,  when  possession  was  to  be  delivered. — (See  Ap- 
pendix P.) 

About  the  same  time,  and  on  the  16th  day  of  May^  1857,  a  deed 
was  prepared  and  executed  by  Geo.  Irving  and  wife  for  this  property 
C  about  110  acres,  more  or  less")  to  the  government,  the  considera- 
tion being  the  payment  of  §200,000,  of  which  §115,000  was  to  be  paid 
in  cash,  and  the  balance,  §85,000,  to  remain  on  mortgage,  as  agreed 
upon  by  the  Secretary  of  War. — (See  Appendix  Q.) 

After  the  preparation  and  execution  of  these  deeds  and  mortgages 
they  were  delivered  to  William  C.  Wetmore,  (cousin  of  Prosper  M.,) 
attorney  and  lawyer  in  the  transaction;  and  shortly  after,  Richard 
Schell  proceeded  to  Washington,  with  an  abstract  of  the  title  and  the 
papers  connected  therewith,  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  title  passed 
and  the  sale  consummated.  On  his  arrival  in  Washington  he  called 
(as  was  always  his  custom)  upon  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  told  him 
what  his  business  was,  and  was  referred  by  the  Secretary  to  the  At- 
torney General,  with  a  written  communication  to  that  officer  to  ex- 
amine the  papers.  At  the  office  of  the  Attorney  General,  upon  an 
examination  of  his  papers,  the  title  was  declared  insufficient,  and  re- 
jected. Mr.  Richard  Schell  thereupon  leturned  to  New  York,  delivered 
the  papers  to  William  0.  Wetmore,  the  lawyer,  and  urged  him  to  sup- 
ply the  defects  in  the  title  immediately,  so  as  to  satisfy  the  Attorney 
General. 


10  WILKINS'    OR    WILLETT'S   POINT    INVESTIGATION. 

Up  to  this  period  the  amount  advanced  by  Kichard  Schell  was  but 
$10,000.  In  order  to  get  a  title  to  the  property  which  woukl  satisfy  the 
Attorney  General,  it  was  necessary  to  pay  off  the  mortgages,  amount- 
ing to  |18,750,  with  some  interest  due  upon  them,  held  by  Charles 
P.  Loweree  and  Charles  A.  Willett ;  and  accordingly,  on  the  3d  day  of 
July,  1857,  the  first  payment  of  $115,000  being  payable,  according  to 
the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  the  13th  May  preceding,  on  the 
1st  of  July,  (two  days  previous,)  Richard  Schell  advanced  between 
§18,000  and  $20,000  to  William  C.  Wetmore,  attorney,  for  that  pur- 
pose. Mr.  Wetmore  paid  off  the  mortgages  on  that  day,  and,  with 
the  satisfaction  pieces,  and  the  abstract  of  the  title  to  the  property, 
which  he  had  pre])ared,  and  the  deed  from  Wissmann,  his  wife,  and 
trustee,  to  George  Irving,  and  from  George  Irving  to  the  government, 
he,  on  the  following  day,  the  4th  July,  in  company  with  John  C. 
Mather,  proceeded  to  Washington  to  have  the  matter  closed.  They 
arrived  in  Washington  on  Sunday,  the  5th  July,  1857,  as  appears 
from  an  entry  in  Willards'  books,  in  Mather's  handwriting,  and 
visited  the  Secretary  of  War  on  the  following  day,  when  all  the 
departments  in  Washington  were  ordered  to  be,  and  ought  to  have 
been  closed,  and  no  business  transacted  therein,  out  of  respect  to  the 
memory  of  the  Hon.  William  L.  Marcy,  and  they  then  succeeded  in 
obtaining  from  the  Secretary  of  War  a  letter  to  the  Attorney  General, 
directing  the  latter  to  examine  and  determine  upon  the  sufficiency  of 
the  papers  and  title. 

The  assistant  of  the  Attorney  General  examined  the  papers  sub- 
mitted by  William  C.  Wetmore,  and  prepared  an  opinion,  dated  July 
7,  1857,  which  the  Attorney  General  signed,  passing  the  title,  subject 
to  the  condition  that  evidence  of  the  ])ayment  of  the  taxes  should 
be  given. — (See  Appendix  S  )  Mr.  Gillett,  the  assistant  of  the 
Attorney  General,  appeared  before  the  committee  and  testified  that, 
in  the  examination  of  the  title  and  papers,  it  did  not  appear  that  the 
mortgage  of  $85,000  was  to  remain  upon  the  property,  hut  that  it  had 
been  satisfied,  and  that  had  he  known  at  the  time,  or  had  the  Attorney 
General  known  at  the  time,  that  that  mortgage  remained  upon  the 
property,  they  would  not  have  passed  the  title.  The  Attorney  Gen- 
eral's favorable  opinion  having  been  obtained  on  the  following  day, 
the  8th,  the  Secretary  of  War  endorsed  upon  the  deed  from  Irving  to 
the  government  the  following  order  :  '^  The  Attorney  General  having 
certified  that  the  within  deed  vests  a  valid  title  in  the  United  states, 
it  is  hereby  approved.  A  reipiisition  will  therefore  be  issued  for  the 
first  payment,  viz.,  $115,000.  Signed,  John  13.  Floyd,  Secretary  of 
War.  War  Dei)artment,  July  8,  1857."  ''Engineer  department, 
received  July  8,  1857." — (See  Api)endix  Q.) 

In  compliance  with  that  order,  the  draft  for  the  $115,000  was  drawn 
on  the  same  day,  ])ayable  to  the  order  of  Lieut.  Q.  A.  Gillmore,  of  the 
engineers,  stationed  at  New  York,  and  given  to  lawyer  Wetmore,  or 
Mather  ;  and  on  the  evening  of  that  day^Mr.  John  C.  Mather  and 
William  C.  Wetmore  left  Washington  for  New  York,  as  the  under- 
signed has  reason  to  believe,  taking  with  them  "  in  an  envelope"  the 
draft  drawn  to  the  order  of  Lieut.  Gillmore. 

On  the  9th  day  of  July,  1857,  Itichard  Schell,  early  in  the  morn- 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT    INVESTIGATION.  11 

ing,  called  at  the  office  of  Mr.  Cisco,  the  United  States  treasurer  at  New- 
York,  and  showed  his  hook-keeper,  Mr.  Eussell,  the  draft,  then  with  one 
endorsement  thereon,  "  Pay  to  the  order  of  George  Irvino^.''  On  the 
same  day,  George  Irving  and  Mr.  Richard  Schell  proceeded  to  Lieut, 
Gillmore's  office — the  latter  with  a  letter  from  his  brother  Augustus, 
the  collector,  introducing  him  ^'  on  business  to  be  attended  to  that 
day."  Lieutenant  Gillmore  endorsed  the  draft  over  to  George  Irving, 
who  then  endorsed  it  over  to  Richard  Si  hell.  On  the  same  day,  Rich- 
ard Schell  deposited  the  draft  in  the  American  Exchange  Bank,  and 
the  whole  amount  of  it  w^as  received  by  him,  and  put  into  his  busi- 
ness, where  it  has  remained,  according  to  his  own  statement,  ever 
since,  excepting  $10,000  or  $12,000  paid  Irving,  and  the  lawyers'  fees 
and  incumbrances  paid  out  of  it.  After  he  had  received  this  draft, 
and  on  the  same  day,  Richard  Schell  drew  a  check  and  handed  it  to 
William  C.  Wetmore,  the  lawyer,  to  pay  a  mortgage  of  $15,502  still 
remaining  upon  the  property,  and  payable  the  next  day. 

It  appears  that,  before  the  "  speculators"  could  get  a  deed  from 
Wissmann  to  this  property,  which  deed  was  necessary  before  their 
sale  to  the  government  could  be  consummated,  $35,000,  in  addition  to 
the  $10,000  previously  paid,  had  to  be  paid  to  Wissmann,  according 
to  the  agreement  made  between  Wissmann  and  George  Irving^  the 
nominal  purchaser,  by  which,  upon  the  payment  of  $35^000,  on  or 
before  the  10th  day  of  July,  1857,  Frederick  Wissmann  and  his  wife 
engaged  to  convey  to  George  Irving_,  by  a  good  warrantee  deed,  the 
above  described  property. 

Richard  Schell  advanced  the  money  to  and  paid  ofiP  two  mortgages 
upon  the  property  of  between  $18,750  and  $20,000  on  the  3d  July, 
1857  ;  but  he  could  not,  or  did  not,  advance  sufficient  to  make  u]^  the 
balance,  and  tlius  a  mortgage  was  given  tor  $15,502  to  Mrs.  Wiss- 
mann and  trustee,  payable  on  the  10th  day  of  July,  1857. — (See  Ap- 
pendix R.) 

The  mortgage  was  dated  back  to  the  12th  day  of  May,  1857,  as  was 
also  Wissmann 's  deed  to  Irving.  At  the  time  of  the  payment  of 
the  $115,000  by  the  government  for  tlie  property,  this  mortgage  for 
$15,502,  as  well  as  the  mortgage  for  $85,000,  was  duly  recorded  (on 
the  Gth  July,  1857,)  against  the  property,  and  was  an  outstanding 
lien  upon  it,  and  yet  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  passed 
the  title  to  the  property  on  the  7th  July,  1857.  The  understanding 
on  the  part  of  William  C.  Wetmore,  attorney  for  the  ^^speculators," 
appears  to  have  been  that  this  $15,502  mortgage  was  only  an  arrange- 
ment which  Mr.  Wissmann  entered  into  to  accommodate  these  parties 
by  giving  them  a  few  days  further  time  to  make  the  payment.  He 
elucidated  this  part  of  the  transaction  in  his  testimony  before  the  com- 
mittee in  the  following  manner  : 

"  Question.  Did  you  have  any  interviews  with  the  United  States  dis- 
trict attorney,  at  New  York,  Mr.  McKeon,  on  the  subject? 

''  Answer.   I  did. 

^'  Question.  Why  was  it  that  he  did  not  search  the  title  to  these 
premises? 

''  Answer.   He  told  me  that  he  had. 

^'  Question.  Did  he  pass  the  title,  to  your  knowledge? 


12  WILKINS'    OR  WILLETT'S  POINT    INVESTIGATION. 

^'Answrr.  He  told  me  that  lie  had,  while  he  did  not  give  us  any  evi- 
dence of  that  fact. 

^^  I  want  to  explain  the  Van  Blankenstyn  mortgage.  I  investigated 
this  title,  as  I  have  said,  for  George  Irving,  and  passed  the  title.  My 
impression  is,  that  was  some  time  in  March  or  April.  He  represented 
to  me  that  he  had  bought  the  title  and  wanted  me  to  pass  it.  After 
I  passed  it  I  made  an  abstract,  and  had  a  map  made  of  the  whole 
property.  Mr.  Irving  told  me  that  he  was  about  to  sell  that  property 
to  the  government.  He  wished  me  to  put  my  abstract,  searches,  and 
my  map  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  McKeon.  I  did  put  them  there  myself,  and 
gave  them  into  Mr.  McKeon's  hands.  I  asked  him  whether  he  had 
been  notified  that  the  government  had  purchased  that  piece  of  prop- 
erty. He  told  me  that  a  gentleman  from  Washington  had  been  with 
him  on  the  subject — a  gentleman  connected  with  the  department. 
He  did  not  state  who  it  was.  I  lelt  the  papers  with  him.  I  called  on 
him  several  times  in  relation  to  it.  He  left  it  with  some  gentleman  out 
of  his  office  to  make  the  search.  I  followed  this  thing  up  for  some 
time,  some  weeks,  and  at  last  Mr.  Irving  came  to  me  and  told  me 
that  it  was  delayed  very  much.  This  must  have  been  in  .May,  or 
may  be  in  June.  I  then  made  a  new  abstract  and  full  searches, 
which  the  government  have  got.  I  accomplished  this  in  a  few  days, 
because  I  had  previous  notes,  and  because  I  knew  what  to  do, 
having  got  all  my  papers  ready.  Mr.  Irving  said  that  he  wanted 
me  to  go  to  Washington  and  show  these  papers  to  the  Attor- 
ney G-eneral.  I  went  to  Mr.  McKeon's  office,  and  asked  him  what 
had  become  of  the  map,  abstract,  papers,  &c.  I  think  he  told 
me  that  Mr.  Joachimsen  had  either  gone  to  Washington  with  them  or 
was  going  with  them.  I  told  him  that  I  was  going  to  Washington 
on  that  very  business.  On  the  evening  of  the  4th  of  July  I  started. 
I  went  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  he  referred  them  to  the  Attorney 
General.  I  went  there  and  told  the  Attorney  General  what  papers  I 
had  got.  We  waited  for  Mr.  Joachimsen  to  come  on  with  his  papers. 
Not  coming,  I  telegraphed  to  know  what  had  become  of  them.  Mr. 
McKeon  telegraphed  back  that  Mr.  Joacliimsen  liad  gone  to  Newport, 
Providence,  or  somewhere  else,  instead  of  coming  to  Washington,  and 
would  not  return  for  Iwo  or  three  days.  I  stated  these  facts  to  Mr. 
Gillett  and  to  the  Attorney  General.  They  said  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  have  Mr.  McKeon's  certificate,  if  the  abstract  was  all 
straight,  and  there  was  a  certificate  of  a  lawyer  who  was  considered  a 
competent  man  for  that  business,  and  they  said  that  they  would  take  the 
papers  and  see  whether  the  title  was  good.  Mr.  Gillett  took  my 
papers  and  went  over  the  whole  matter.  Next  morning  he  told  me 
that  it  was  perfectly  satisfactory.  The  papers  went  before  the  Attorney 
General,  who  in  a  day  or  two  gave  his  certificate  that  the  title  was  good. 
The  8th  day  of  July  was  probably  the  day  it  was  closed.  When  those 
papers  were  delivered,  all  the  money  had  been  paid  to  Mr.  Blankenstyn 
(the  trustee  for  Wissmann  and  wife,)  and  all  the  money  had  been 
paid  on  these  mortgages,  except  $85,000.  Mr.  Irving  bought  this 
property  under  an  a-^reement  that  he  should  give  back  a  mortgage 
for  §85,000  to  Van  Blankenstyn.  The  balance  was  to  be  paid  in  cash. 
All  that  fjalancehad  been  paid  to  Mr.  Van  Blankenstyn  hut  this  $15,502. 


WILKIXS'    OR    WILLETT'S    POIKT   INVESTIGATION.  13 

According  to  my  understanding  ^  a  mortgage  teas  written  for  that  amount. 
This  mortgage  to  Air.  Van  Blanker  sty  nivas  a  memorandum  of  how  much 
teas  due  him.  I  luas  responsible  to  him  that  he  should  have  that  money 
under  any  circumstances.  I  was  to  return  from  Washington  and  pay 
Mm,  It  teas  neither  his  nor  my  intention  that  that  mortgage  should  go 
upon  record.  3Ir.  Vose  {attorney  for  Wissmann)  improperly,  in  my  Judg- 
ment, sent  it  to  he  recorded.    1  he  moment  I  got  hack  I  paid  the  mortgage 

The  mortgage  was  finally  paid,  by  Mr.  Richard  Schell  giving  his 
check  for  the  amount,  after  he  had  received  the  §115,000.  The  under- 
signed is  of  opinion  that  Mr.  Wissmann  and  his  wife  and  trustee,  Mr. 
Van  Blankenstyn,  acting  through  their  attorneys,  had  this  mortgage 
recorded  against  the  property,  notwithstanding  their  "intention"  to 
the  contrary,  because  they  were  afraid  of  the  "speculators"  with  whom 
they  were  dealing  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  had  these  "speculators" 
chosen  to  have  allowed  the  mortgage  to  remain  unpaid,  after  they 
received  the  $115,000,  they  could  have  done  it,  and  the  government 
would  then  have  been  compelled  to  pay  that  mortgage,  as  well  as  the 
one  for  §85,0C0,  which  the  Secretary  of  War  expressly  contracted  and 
assumed  to  pay,  with  interest,  at  7  per  cent.,  for  five  years,  from 
April  15,  1857. 

Richard  Schell  testifies  that  the  §115,000  he  received  he  put  into 
his  business,  and  considered  his  property,  from  the  time  of  its  receipt. 
That  subsequent  to  its  payment,  and  within  the  next  sixty  days,  he 
advanced  §10,000  or  §12,000  to  George  Irving,  who  never  advanced 
a  dollar  of  his  own  money  toward  the  purchase  of  this  property,  and 
never  had  any  understanding  with  Richard  Schell  in  regard  to  the 
commissions  alleged  to  be  i)aid  on  the  advances  made  by  him,  or  what 
was  to  be  done  with  the  money  received  from  the  government,  until 
about  the  time  of  its  receipt  by  Schell,  on  the  9th  day  of  July,  1857. 

Another  flict  appearing  in  evidence  in  relation  to  the  close  of  this 
sale  to  the  government  is,  that  the  two  mortgages  of  Loweree  and 
Willett  against  the  property,  which  were  paid  on  the  3d  of  July,  1857, 
the  satisfaction  pieces  entitled  to  record  given  were  not  recorded  until 
the  27th  day  of  November  following  ;  William  C.  Wetmore  having 
left  the  satisfaction  pieces,  as  well  as  the  simultaneous  deeds  from  Cor- 
nelius Van  Blankenstyn,  trustee  for  Mrs.  Wissmann  to  George  Irving, 
and  the  deed  from  George  Irving  to  the  government,  at  the  War  De- 
partment, on  the  7th  or  8th  of  July,  1857. 

One  of  the  important  facts  necessary  to  be  inquired  into  and  reported 
upon  by  your  committee  being  the  question  of  the  fair  value  of  the 
Wilkins'  Point  property  purchased  by  the  government,  the  under- 
signed endeavored  to  procure  the  best  evidence  that  could  be  obtained 
in  relation  thereto;  and  in  the  examination  of  the  different  witnesses 
upon  that  subject  kept  steadily  in  view  the  true  and  fair  value  of  that 
property  during  the  month  of  April,,  1857,  (the  month  in  which  the 
proposition  of  George  Irving  to  sell  for  §200,000  was  submitted 
and  accepted  by  the  Secretary  of  War,)  with  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining its  fair  and  honest  value  at  that  time.  The  following  brief 
synopsis  of  the  evidence,  bearing  upon  the  value  of  the  property,  will 
enable  the  House  to  arrive  at  a  proper  judgment  in  relation   to  it : 


14  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S    POINT    INVESTIGATION. 

Charles  A.  Willett,  of  Flushing,  who  owned  and  lived  upon  this 
property  all  his  life,  up  to  1852,  when  he  sold  it  for  $35,500,  valued 
the  whole  farm  (say  152  acres)  in  April,  1857,  at  the  sum  for  which 
he  sold  it  in  1852. 

Gilbert  Hicks,  residing  at  Flushing,  and  knowing  this  property  all 
his  life,  valued  it  at  $500  an  acre,  ''  at  the  furthest  extent." 

William  H.  Wilkins,  an  owner  of  two  large  farms  in  the  vicinity, 
on  one  of  which  he  resided,  valued  this  property  at  $400  per  acre. 

Augustus  Gr.  Silliman,  residing  in  Flushing,  an  owner  of  real 
estate,  and  a  magistrate  therefor  years,  valued  it  at  $500  an  acre.  He 
said  that  would  be  a  large  price  for  it — "  its  full  value." 

Henry  Day,  of  New  York  city,  purchased  26 ^^/^^  acres  from  Wiss- 
mann,  of  this  Wilkins'  Point  property,  equal  to  any  pait  of  the  place, 
for  $500  an  acre,  excepting  five  acres  of  it,  which  he  purchased  at  $400 
an  acre,  in  November,  1856. 

Mr.  Day  testified  that  Major  Barnard  sent  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  to 
him,  and  that  he  offered  the  whole  of  it  for  $44,500,  and  that  they 
made  a  sort  of  an  offer  to  him  at  $30,000,  but  that  he  said  he  was 
unwilling  to  take  it. 

Colonel  John  L.  JSmith,  engineer  in  charge  of  the  work  at  Wilkins' 
Point,  had  charge  of  the  building  of  Fort  Schuyler,  valued  the  land 
at  Wilkins'  Point  at  $500  per  acre. 

Charles  P.  Loweree,  an  old  resident  of  Flushing,  who  had  known 
this  property  all  his  life,  valued  it  at  §500  an  acre. 

William  Turner,  residing  near  Flushing,  an  owner  of  real  estate, 
valued  it  at  from  $400  to  $800  an  acre. 

Anthony  J.  Bleecker,  real  estate  agent  and  auctioneer.  New  York 
city,  well  acquainted  with  the  property  and  its  value,  said  that  it  was 
worth,  in  April,  1857,  not  over  $500  an  acre. 

Jacob  Cole,  of  the  firm  of  James  Cole  &  Son,  Brooklyn,  the  largest 
real  estate  brokers  and  auctioneers  on  Long  Island,  valued  the  land  at 
from  $500  to  $550  per  acre. 

Simeon  Draper,  real  estate  auctioneer  in  New  York  city,  was  by 
Wissmann  offered  the  property  two  years  ago  for  $500  or  $600  an  acre. 
He  valued  the  whole  plot  (152  acres)  as  worth  $50,000. 

Theodore  Draper,  broker  and  real  estate  operator.  New  York  city, 
testified  that  "  two  years  and  a  half  ago  he  could  have  selected  four 
ten  acre  plots,  (forty  acres,)  with  water  fronts,  for  $400  an  acre,  by 
agreement  with  Wissmann." 

F.  Wissmann  bought  the  whole  farm,  containing  152  acres,  in  1852, 
for  $35,500,  as  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Gr.  Frings.  He  agreed 
to  sell  twenty  acres,  the  choice  part  ot  the  place,  to  be  selected  by 
Wm.  S.  Alley_,  down  to  the  time  of  sale  to  the  government,  (April, 
1857,)  at  $500  an  acre. 

It  appears  in  evidence  that  there  was  a  similar  agreement  made  with 
the  Drapers  to  sell  40  acres  at  about  the  same  rate. 

Graham  Policy,  residing  in  East  Brooklyn,  Long  Island,  testified 
that  Wissmann  offered  to  sell  him  the  whole  place  (152  acres)  in  July, 
1856,  for  $65,000.  Wissmann  was  very  anxious  to  sell  ;  called  on 
Policy  several  times  to  induce  him  to  buy,  and  Policy  understood  that 
if  he  would  })urcliase  he  could  get  the  whole  property  for  $45,000. 


WILKIXS'    OR    WILLETT'S    POINT    IXVESTIGATION.  15 

Andrew  H.  Mickle,  residing  near  Flushing,  on  a  fine  farm  about  half 
a  mile  from  Wilkins'  Point,  valued  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  at  from 
$500  to  a  $1^000  an  acre  for  the  government.  He  did  not  believe  that 
any  jury  would  appraise  its  value  over  $1,000  an  acre. 

D.  Van  Xostrand,  of  Xew  York  city,  who  knew  nothing  of  the 
value  of  the  property,  except  from  his  inquiries  on  behalf  of  the  gov- 
ernment, valued  the  property  at  $1,000  an  acre. 

John  W.  Lawrence,  ex-member  of  Congress,  residing  at  Flushing, 
valued  the  property  for  the  government  (the  whole  farmj  at  $100,000, 
which  he  thought  a  fair  price.  He  was  authorized  by  Wissmann  to 
sell  the  property  down  to  and  on  the  1st  of  April,  1857,  for  that 
price.     Of  this  the  War  Department  was  informed. 

J.  D.  Williamson_,  of  Xew  York  city,  surveyor  and  engineer,  sur- 
veyed the  farm  in  the  spring  of  1856,  and  vras  authorized  to  sell  the 
whole  farm  (of  152  acres)  in  plots  or  villa  sites  for  $52,500,  he  to  re- 
ceive 2i  per  cent,  for  such  sale.  If  he  could  sell  it  for  over  §55,000 
he  was  to  receive  not  only  five  per  cent,  commission,  but  half  of 
what  was  paid  above  that  sum.  He  did  not  consider  it  worth  over 
$40,000.  He  ofi'ered  to  sell  it  to  the  \Var  Department  in  1856  for 
$75,0uO,  but  received  no  reply.  Henry  S.  Hover,  residing  at  Flush- 
ing, and  collector  of  that  town,  testified  that  the  whole  property  was 
assessed  at  $27,000,  and  considered  it  worth  in  Aprils  1857,  from  $700 
to  $800  an  acre  for  the  government. 

Henry  M.  Weeks,  residing  at  Glen  Cove,  Long  Island,  real  estate 
auctioneer,  doing  business  in  Xew  York  city,  valued  the  property  at 
$1,000  an  acre,  and  thought  it  would  have  brought  $85,000,  the 
amount  of  the  mortgage  the  government  assumed  to  pay,  had  it  been 
sold  under  that  mortgage  on  the  2od  April,  1857.  Tliis  was  the  date 
of  the  certificate  of  the  four  auctioneers  (of  which  number  he  was  one) 
valuing  the  property  at  $2,250  an  acre,  and  allowing  $20,000  for  im- 
prove ments  and  old  stone,  making  the  value  of  the  property  pur- 
chased by  the  government  (say  110  acres)  §207,500.  Tliis  certificate 
was  written  and  signed  at  the  request  of  Prosper  M  Wetmore,  he 
promising  to  pay  these  auctioneers  a  fee  for  their  signatures. 

Gustavus  Fringe,  a  German  real  estate  speculator,  testified  that  he 
considered  this  property  worth  $1,000  an  acre,  although  he  would  not 
have  been  willing  to  have  paid  that  for  it  in  April,  1857. 

Henry  Grinnell  said  that  n(j  importance  should  be  attached  to  his 
evidence,  but  it  was  his  impresf,iun  that  the  property  could  have  been 
sold  in  April,  1857,  for  from  $800  to  $1,000  an  acre. 

John  Cryder,  of  Cryder's  Point,  Long  Island,  testified  that  he  was 
called  upon  in  March  or  April,  1857,  by  Collector  Schell,  on  behalf  of 
the  government,  to  inquire  about  the  valae  of  the  Wilkins"  Point 
property,  and  that  he  informed  him  that  it  was  worth  for  the  govern- 
ment S700  or  $800  an  acre. 

William  8.  Alley,  of  Xew  York  city,  as  appears  by  his  afiidavit  in 
evidence,  had  a  contract  with  Wissmann,  in  .March  or  April,  1857,  to 
take  his  choice  of  twenty  acres  of  the  property  at  $500  an  acre,  which 
contract  he  cancelled  at  Wissmann 's  re^juest,  who  desired  to  sell  the 
whole  jjroperty  to  the  government. 

Edward  8   Lawrence,  residing  near  Flushing,  considered  the  Wil- 


16  WILKINS'    OK   WILLETT'S    POINT    INVESTIGATION. 

kins'  Point  property  worth  for  the  government  from  $1,500  to  $2,000 
an  acre.  He  was  a  memher  of  the  New  York  legislature  last  winter, 
with  Richard  Schell  and  John  C.  Mather,  and  the  subject  of  the 
property  had  been  mentioned  to  him  by  one  of  them. 

Prosper  M.  Wetmore  valued  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  in  city 
lots,  at  $330,000  ;  stated  that  $80,000  of  that  amount  should  be  ex- 
pended for  grading  and  streets,  leaving  $250,000  as  the  value  of  the 
})roperty. 

John  C.  Mather  had  not  seen  the  property,  and  did  not  know  what 
it  was  worth  ;  but,  from  what  he  had  heard,  thought  the  property  had 
been  purchased  by  the  government  for  $50,000  less  than  its  value. 

Augustus  Schell  and  Isaac  V.  Fowler  certified  in  a  letter  to  the 
Secretary  of  War  that  the  property  was  worth  $200,000. 

It  will  thus  be  observed,  that  five  gentlemen  residing  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Wilkins'  Point,  in  noway  interested  in  the  sale  to  the  gov- 
ernment or  connected  with  the  ^^speculators"  who  sold  it,  owners  of 
real  estate  in  Queens  county,  and  good  judges  of  the  value  of  property 
there,  testified  that  the  property  sold  to  the  government  was  worth 
not  over  $500  an  acre  when  the  Secretary  of  War  purchased  it. 

Nine  gentlemen,  equally  disinterested^  and  capable  as  judges  of  the 
value  of  the  property,  testified  that  it  was  worth  from  $500  to  $1,000 
an  acre. 

Three  of  the  most  reliable  and  largest  real  estate  auctioneers  and 
brokers  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn  testified  that  the  property  was 
not  worth  over  $550  an  acre  at  the  time  the  government  purchased  it. 

In  pursuing  their  investigation,  your  committee  have  had  to  con- 
tend with  the  same  difiiculty  which  the  Fort  Snelling  committee  ap- 
pear to  have  labored  under,  viz:  weakness  of  memory  of  important 
witnesses  and  their  total  obliviousness  of  material  facts. 

The  undersigned  quotes  the  following  extract  from  the  testimony  of 
Hon.  Richard  Schell,  a  senator  of  the  State  of  New  York,  as  the 
only  instance  in  which  they  were  successful  in  aiding  one  of  these 
witnesses  to  recollect  a  fact. 

Inquiring  as  to  certain  payments  made  by  Mr.  Schell,  and  he  not 
being  able  to  recollect  them,  the  question  was  asked,  whether  his 
check  book  would  not  show  the  time  at  which  they  were  made?  He 
replied,  "  Yes." 

The  examination  then  proceeded  : 

^'  Question.  Have  you  vour  check  books  here  ? 

^'  Answer.  No,  sir. 

'^  Question.  You  were  subpoenaed  to  bring  them  ? 

''  Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Question.   Why  did  you  not  bring  tliem? 

"  Answer.  I  have  not  got  any.  These  are  all  the  books  I  have, 
(exhibiting  some  bank  books  of  deposit.) 

''  Question.  You  have  just  stated  that  your  check  books  would  show 
the  payments  you  made  Irving?     (He  had  so  answered  before.) 

''  Answer.  I  have  not  any  check  books.  When  I  went  to  Albany 
I  made  up  my  mind  that  I  had  been  doing  a  large  usurious  business 
in  Wall  street  ;  tliat  1  had  been  making  money  by  taking  usury  ;  and 
after  I  became  a  legislator  I  came  back  and  said :   '  Good  bye,  Johnny ; 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  17 

I  will  destroy  everything  ;  I  do  not  want  anything  to  do  with,  these 
hooks  hereafter.' 

^''Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  have  destroyed  your 
check  books  for  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  July,  Au- 
gust^ and  September,  185*7  ? 

^^  Answer.  Since  the  1st  of  January,  1856. 

^^ Question.  Destroyed  all  of  them? 

^'  Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

^^  Question.  With  what  banks  did  you  keep  your  accounts  during 
these  months  ? 

''Answer.  The  Marine  Bank,  Bank  of  the  Eepublic,  and  Bank  of 
New  York.  You  can  readily  see,  by  these  remaining  books,  that  I 
have  here  the  amouut  of  money  I  received  and  used. 

'^Question.  Would  those  check  books  have  shown  the  amounts,  and 
to  whom,  you  had  drawn  checks  during  those  months? 

''  Answer.  Sometimes  they  would,  and  sometimes  they  would  not. 

'"'Question.  You  have  destroyed  your  check  books  for  the  two  years 
of  1856  and  1857? 

"Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Question.   When  were  they  destroyed? 

"  Answer.  I  think  in  the  month  of  January,  or  it  may  have  been 
in  the  month  of  February.  My  impressions  are,  that  it  was  in  the 
month  of  February. 

"  Question.  Was  it  after  tliis  investigation  was  ordered  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  ? 

"  Witness.  I  should  think  not.     When  was  it  ordered? 

"  The  Chairman.  Early  in  February. 

"  Witness.  My  impressions  are,  that  it  was  before. 

"  Question.  Are  you  not  certain  that  they  were  destroyed  after  you 
had  notice  that  there  had  been  an  investigation  ordered  by  the  House 
in  relation  to  this  matter  ? 

"Witness.  Well,  I  am  ready  to  answer  that  question ;  that  is,  is  that 
a  fair  question  to  put  ? 

"  The  Chairman.  I  ask  you  whether  you  are  not  certain  that  the 
books  were  destroyed  after  this  investigation  was  ordered? 

"  Mr.  Florence.  I  think  it  involves  no  question ;  I  destroy  my  check 
books. 

"  The  Chairman.  I  ask  Mr.  Scliell  whether  he  did  not  destroy  the 
books  after  he  had  learned  that  this  investigation  had  been  ordered? 

"  Witness.  I  think  it  was  about  the  20th  of  February  I  destroyed 
them. 

"  Question.  When  you  learned  that  this  investigation  had  been  or- 
dered, had  it  any  influence  upon  your  mind  in  inducing  you  to  destroy 
the  books? 

"Answer.  It  may  have  had,  but  I  do  not  think  it  had  much,  from  one 
simple  fact :  I  send  for  William  C.  Wetmore,  and  say  to  him  :  '  I 
am  going  to  destroy  my  check  books.  I  do  not  know  any  of  these 
things,  and  I  do  not  know  what  the  result  will  be  ;  and  I  will  not 
have  my  usurious  transactions  shown  up  to  the  public;'  says  he, 
'  they  cannot  call  for  these  books.' 

H.  Rep.  Com,  519 2 


18  WILKINS'    OR   VriLLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

*' Question.  After  this  investigation  was  ordered,  you  consulted  with 
your  lawyer,  William  C.  Wetmore,  and  destroyed  all  these  books  ? 

'^  Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

*'  Question.   What  became  of  the  checks  ? 

'^  Answer.  I  have  always  been  in  the  habit  of  destroying  ray  checks, 
more  or  less. 

'^  Question.  When  did  you  destroy  these  checks? 
.   '*  Answer.  At  the  same  time  I  destroyed  the  check  books." 

The  destruction  of  these  check  books  and  checks  is  regretted  by  the 
undersigned,  inasmuch  as  he  expected  that  the  committee  would  be 
able  to  show  by  them  the  division  of  the  $70,000  profit  among  the 
''  speculators,"  which  profit  was  made  by  the  sale  of  this  property  to 
the  government.  Nevertheless^  the  undersigned  has,  to  the  best  of  his 
judgment,  pursued  the  inquiries  the  committee  were  appointed  to  make, 
and  by  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  papers  on  file  at  the  War 
Department  relating  to  the  purchase  of  this  property,  and  a  comparison 
of  the  testimony  given  before  the  committee  by  the  various  witnesses 
examined,  has  arrived  at  the  following  conclusions : 

That  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  })urchased  by  the  government 
for  fortification  purposes  on  the  28th  of  April,  1857,  at  the  price  of 
$200,000,  could  have  been  purchased  on  or  before  the  1st  of  April, 
1857,  by  the  government,  for  $100,000,  had  the  Secretary  of  War 
conferred  ui)on  the  engineer  in  charge  at  New  York  (Major  Barnard) 
the  authority  then  asked  by  him  to  make  the  offer. 

That  the  reason  assigned  by  the  Secretary  of  War  in  refusing  to 
sanction  the  purchase  at  $100,000  was,  that  it  was  an  exorbitant 
price. 

That  the  Secretary  of  War  directed  the  Engineer  Bureau  to  have  an 
act  passed  by  the  legislature  of  New  York  authorizing  the  government 
to  take  the  property  under  an  act  of  condemnation. 

That  whilst  the  Engineer  Bureau  were  activel}^  engaged  in  procur 
ing  said  act,  the  Secretary  of  War,  without  consulting  the  engineer  in 
charge.  General  Totten,  entertained  George  Irving's  ofier  of  sale  of 
this  property  to  the  government  for  $200,000. 

That  the  knowledge  of  the  Secretary  of  War  that  other  persons 
than  George  Irving  were  interested  in  his  ofier  is  shown  in  the  fact 
that  in  the  letter  addressed  to  Augustus  Schell,  April  13,  1857,  the 
Secretary  stated  that  a  negotiation  had  been  pending  for  some  time 
between  the  United  States  authorities  and  ''some  parties"  in  New 
York  for  the  purchase  of  a  site. 

That  the  Secretary  of  War  paid  a  grossly  exorbitant  price  for  the 
])ro])erty  known  as  Wilkins'  Point. 

That  it  liad  been  the  custom  of  the  Engineer  Bureau,  for  the  past 
twenty  years,  to  arrange  and  conclude  all  the  negotiations  for  the 
l)urchases  of  sites  for  fortifications  ;  and  that  if  said  bureau  had, 
under  the  wise  and  prudent  precautions  of  General  Totten,  been 
permitted  to  have  negotiated  and  concluded  the  purchase  of  the  site  at 
Wilkins'  Point,  it  would  have  been  acquired  for  $100,000  less  than 
the  price  the  Secretary  paid  for  it. 

That  the  act  of  the  Secretary  of  War  in  taking  the  purchase  of  this 
])roperty  from  the  Engineer  Bureau   was  unusual  and  unjustifiable  ; 


WILRINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  19 

enabling;  as  it  did,  tlie  ^^speculators"  to  whom  he  referred  to  succeed 
in  obtaining  from  the  government  $200,000  for  a  property  which 
the  preponderance  of  evidence  shows  was  not  intrinsically  worth  over 
$60,000. 

That  the  course  pursued  by  General  Totten  and  the  Engineer 
Bureau  in  negotiating  this  purchase,  until  interfered  with  by  the 
Secretary  of  War,  was  cautious  and  prudent ;  and  would,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  undersigned,  if  concluded,  have  protected  the  government  from 
^^  the  speculators." 

That  the  Secretary  of  War  had  no  color  of  right  or  legal  authority, 
in  purchasing  this  property,  to  agree,  on  behalf  of  the  government,  to 
take  it  subject  to  a  mortgage  of  |85,000. 

That  he  had  no  legal  right  or  authority  to  pay  for  it  a  price  exceed- 
ing the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  for  the  purpose^  $50^000. 

That  he  had  no  legal  authority  or  right  to  assume  the  mortgage  of 
$85,000  on  behalf  of  the  government,  and  agree  to  pay  said  mortgage, 
together  with  arrearages  of  interest  and  interest  accruing  at  the  rate 
of  seven  per  cent,  ibr  five  years  from  April  15,  1857,  no  appropriation 
having  been  made  by  Congress  for  that  purpose. 

That  the  acceptance  by  the  Secretary  of  War  of  an  offer  to  sell  this 
property  upon  but  one  communication  in  writing  from  an  individual 
whom  he  had  never  seen  and  did  not  know,  and  to  take  it  subject  to 
the  mortgage,  was  superinduced  either  by  some  friendship  or  favor- 
itism towards  Richard  Schell,  who  had  been  as  a  banker  and  broker 
from  1850,  and  who,  at  the  time,  was  discounting  his  notes  to  the  ex- 
tent of  $15,000  or  ^20,000  ;  towards  John  C.  Mather,  who,  shortly 
thereafter,  was  officially  connected  witli  the  War  Department ;  and 
towards  other  parties  occupying  intimate  and  close  relations  with  him^ 
who,  from  the  peculiar  circumstances  surrounding  the  transaction, 
the  undersigned  has  been  unable  to  connect  directly  with  it. 

That  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  refusing  to  authorize  the  purchase 
by  the  Engineer  Bureau  of  this  property  on  or  before  the  1st  of  April, 
1857,  when  it  could  have  been  acquired  for  $100,000  from  Mr.  Wiss- 
raann,  the  owner,  who  was  willing  and  anxious  to  sell  to  the  govern- 
ment, even  after  the  "  speculators  "  had  offered  him  $130,000  for  his 
property,  committed  a  grave  official  error. 

That  a  jury  of  condemnation  would  not  have  appraised  the  value  of 
the  property  over  $100,000,  (if  as  high,)  had  such  a  jury  been  called 
under  the  act  procured  from  the  legislature  of  New  York  by  direction 
of  General  Totten  and  the  Secretary  of  War. 

That  the  undersigned,  sitting  as  a  juror,  and  passing  upon  the  value 
of  this  property  from   the  evidence   adduced   before   the   committee, 
would  not  be  willing  to  award  over  $G0,000,  which,  in  his  opinion,  is 
its  full  value. 

That  the  quantity  of  land  purchased  by  tlie  government,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  Captain  Wright,  (see  his  second  examination,) 
was  101  acres. 

That,  out  of  the  original  farm  at  Wilkins'  Point,  containing  152 
acres,  Mr.  Wissmann  sold  2G,V',,  acres  to  Mr.  Henry  Day,  and  has 
reserved  to  himself  27  acres,  and  that  the  balance  only  of  this  farm 
could  have  been  sold  to  the  government  by  George  Irving. 


20  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT's   POINT    INVESTIGATION. 

That  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  accepting  the  offer  of  sale  of  George 
Irving,  used  the  following  language  :  "If  the  within  mentioned  tract 
of  land  shall  amount,  upon  actual  survey,  to  ahout  the  quantity  repre- 
sented, to  wit,  from  100  to  130  acres,  and  the  title  thereto  shall  prove 
to  be  good,  as  ascertained  by  the  attorney  of  the  United  States  at  New 
York,  then  I  accept  the  within  offer  of  sale." 

That  no  actual  survey  was  made  by  the  War  Department  previous 
to  the  payment  of  the  purchase  money  for  the  property;  nor  has  any 
such  survey  been  completed  since. 

That  the  taking  of  the  searching  and  passing  of  the  title  of  this 
property  from  the  United  States  district  attorney  for  the  southern  dis- 
trict of  New  York,  and  the  expedition  with  which  it  was  precipitated 
at  the  Attorney  General's  office,  between  the  6th  and  7th  days  of 
July,  1857,  has  no  similar  precedent  in  its  justification  coming  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  undersigned. 

That  in  their  haste  to  expedite  this  transaction,  the  Attorney  Gene- 
ral and  his  assistant,  Mr.  Gillett,  lost  sight  of  the  important  fact  that 
the  title  to  the  property  was  being  passed  with  two  mortgages  upon 
it,  one  for  $85,000  and  one  for  $15,502,  contrary  to  the  usual  course 
of  business  in  that  office. 

That  the  deed  to  the  government  from  Irving  contains  the  follow- 
ing provision  :  '^  Subject  to  a  mortgage  made  by  said  George  Irving 
to  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankensteyn,  trustee  of  Celine  Frances  Wiss- 
mann,  to  secure  the  principal  sum  of  eighty-five  thousand  dollars, 
with  interest,  which  principal  sum  and  arrears  of  interest  forms  part 
of  the  consideration  of  this  conveyance,  and  the  payment  thereof  is 
assumed  by  the  said  parties  of  tlie  second  part  hereto." 

That  while  it  appears  in  evidence  that  the  Secretary  of  War  as- 
sumed this  mortgage,  and  contracted  to  pay  it  with  the  arrearages  of 
interest  upon  it,  and  interest  accruing  at  seven  per  cent,  for  five  years 
from  the  time  of  its  date,  the  assistant  Attorney  General  testifies  that 
evidence  was  given  him  that  it  had  been  satisfied. 

That  this  mortgage  was  not  satisfied  at  the  time  the  tiile  was 
passed  by  the  Attorney  General,  nor  has  it  yet  been  satisfied  ;  and 
that  if  evidence  of  its  satisfaction  was  given  the  assistant  Attorney 
General,  as  he  testifies,  it  was  given  upon  fraudulent  papers. 

That  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Attorney  General  Black  and  his  assistant, 
Mr.  Gillett,  shows  that  the  expedition  with  which  the  title  was  passed 
did  not  give  them  that  time  to  examine  it  which  the  amount  paid  and 
the  importance  of  the  purchase  demanded. 

That  it  is  a  matter  of  doubt  whether,  without  the  assistance  of  the 
War  Department,  rendered  between  the  28th  of  April  ana  the  10th  of 
July,  1857,  these  "  speculators,"  who  were  interested  in  the  sale  of  the 
property  to  the  government,  would  have  been  able  to  have  consum- 
mated their  purchase  i'roni  Wissmann. 

That  by  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government  by  the  parties 
interested,  $70,000  net  profit  was  realized. 

That  this  ])rofit  was  realized  by  Richard  Schell's  advance  of  $1,000 
for  about  84  days,  $9,000  for  about  25  days,  and  $18,750  and  odd,  for 
five  days. 

That  this  profit  of  $70,000  went  into  his  business,  with  the  excep- 


WILKINS*   OR   WILLETT's   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  21 

tion  of  $10,000  or  $12,000,  wliicli  he  testified  he  advanced  to  George 
Irving,  and  some  $10,000  which  he  loaned  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  sub- 
quently  predicated  upon  or  influenced  by  his  interest  in  the  sale 
of  this  property  to  the  government. 

That  the  fact  that  Richard  Schell  did  not  demand  any  security  for 
the  money  he  advanced  G-eorge  Irving,  who  at  the  time,  according  to 
his  own  testimony^  was  not  worth  more  than  $15,000,  (charging  his 
property  with  the  incumbrances  upon  it,)  and  the  fact  that  George 
Irving,  immediately  upon  the  receipt  of  the  draft  from  Gillmore, 
endorsed  it  over  to  Schell  without  asking  any  security  whatever 
from  him,  who,  at  the  time,  could  not  have  given  personal  real 
estate  security  to  the  amount  of  $10, 000^  affords  evidence  that  Richard 
Schell  had  other  interest  in  this  transaction  than  that  growing  out  of 
his  advances  to  make  the  purchase. 

That  Richard  Schell  wilfullv  destroyed  his  check  books  and  checks 
for  the  years  1856  and  1857,  immediately  after  your  committee  was 
appointed,  with  a  view  of  preventing  them  from  arriving  at  all  the 
facts  of  the  case. 

That  the  note  given  by  Richard  Schell  to  Wm.  C.  Wetmore,  for 
George  Irving,  for  $51,708,  since  this  investigation  was  ordered,  for  a 
pretended  balance  due  Irving  from  Shell,  after  he  had  deducted  the 
advances  he  had  made  and  his  commission  out  of  the  $115,000,  the 
whole  of  which  Irving  paid  into  his  hands,  is  a  contrivance  of  the 
^'  speculators"  to  cover  up  the  transaction. 

That  the  testimony  of  Richard  Schell  and  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  show 
that  they  do  not  attach  the  importance  to  it  that  a  note  for  such  an 
amount  would  seem  to  demand,  and  that  the  testimony  of  George 
Irving  strongly  indicates  that  he  never  expects  it  to  be  paid. 

That  the  giving  of  this  note  by  Schell  to  Irving,  was  probably 
done  for  the  purpose  of  preventing,  and  has  prevented,  to  some  extent, 
the  discovery  of  the  ])arties  between  whom  this  $70,000  was  divided. 

That  Richard  Schell,  on  the  9th  of  July,  1857,  received  the  $115,000, 
paid  by  the  government  in  part  payment  for  this  Wilkins'  Point 
property  ;  that  he  placed  the  money  in  his  business,  and  that  a  short 
time  after  he  advanced  out  of  their  '' private  account"  the  money  to 
make  the  first  payment  ($20,000)  on  his  own  and  John  C.  Mather's 
interest  in  the  Fort  Snelling  purchase. 

That  Augustus  Schell,  after  being  requested  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  proceed  with  caution  and  secresy,  placed  himself  in  the  hands 
of  the  '' speculators,"  and  permitted  Pros))er  M.  Wetmore  to  procure 
a  certificate  of  valuation  from  certain  auctioneers,  upon  the  promise 
of  payment  of  a  fee  for  such  signatures,  which  certificate  Augustus 
Schell  forwarded  to  Washington  as  having  been  procured  by  himself, 
and  the  Secretary  of  War  testified  that  it  had  "  considerable  influ- 
ence" with  the  Cabinet  in  tlieir  discussions  upon  the  subject. 

That  in  relation  to  the  act  of  the  legislature  giving  additional  value 
to  the  property  by  extending  the  right  of  the  owners  to  land  under 
water  to  the  distance  of  iour  hundred  feet  from  low  water  mark,  to 
which  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  alludes  in  his  letter,  the  right  was  only 
given  to  the  United  States  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  the  State  of 
Sew  York  to  such  lands  as  it  might  purchase  or  condemn  on  the  island 


22  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT's    POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

of  Long  IslaDd,  and  tlie  former  owners  of  Wilkins'  Point  never  pos- 
sessed tlie  right,  and  therefore  could  not  and  did  not  sell  it  to  the 
United  States. 

That  Augustus  Schell  was  not  justified  in  certifying  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  that  this  property  was  Avorth  $200,000  upon  such  evidence  as 
he  collected,  and  that,  in  giving  that  certificate,  instead  of  promoting 
the  hest  interests  of  the  government,  for  which  purpose  he  was  ap- 
pointed, he  violated  his  trust  and  assisted  the  very  '^  speculators" 
against  whom  he  was  cautioned. 

That  it  ap})ears  in  evidence  that  the  Engineer  Bureau  were  of 
opinion  that  Cryder's  Point  possessed  some  advantages,  and  would 
have  been  a  suitable  location  for  the  fortification. 

That  ^'  Cryder's  Point"  could  have  been  obtained  for  a  reasonable 
sum,  (according  to  Major  Barnard  $80,000,)  and  that  it  would  have 
been  advisable  for  the  Secretary  of  War  to  take  it  in  preference  to 
paying  the  "  inordinate"  price  paid  for  Wilkins'  Point. 

The  undersigned  is  aware  that  the  political  maxim,  ''  to  the  victors 
belong  the  spoils,"  has  peculiar  significance  and  potency  upon  the 
accession  of  each  new  national  administration  to  power  ;  and,  while 
acknowledging  the  legitimate  force  of  the  argument  in  favor  of  the 
application  of  this  doctrine  in  the  dispensation  of  office^  he  deems  it 
his  duty  to  dissent  from,  and  enter  his  protest  against  the  awarding  of 
contracts  or  ^'jobs"  to  political  favorites  and  friends  by  the  executive 
departments  of  the  government  solely  on  political  and  personal 
grounds. 

Nor  can  the  undersigned  pass  over  in  silence  the  opinion  expressed 
by  witnesses  that  the  government  should  be  made  to  pay  more  for 
what  it  re(iuires  than  individuals.  Such  a  doctrine  is  as  fallacious  in 
reason  as  it  is  unjust  and  demoralizing  in  practice. 

From  the  evidence  and  the  foregoing  conclusions  based  thereon, 
the  undersigned  respectfully  submits  the  following  resolutions  : 

Besolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  was  not  authorized  by  the 
appropriation  of  Congress  to  purchase  the  site  for  a  fortification 
opposite  Fort  Schuyler  at  $200,000 ;  and  that  he  had  no  legal 
authority  to  contract  to  purchase  the  proj^erty  at  Wilkins'  Point, 
subject  to  and  to  assume  the  payment,  on  behalf  of  the  government,  of 
a  mortgage  thereon  for  $85,000,  with  interest  in  arrear  and  to  accrue 
on  said  mortgage  ibr  five  years  at  seven  per  cent. 

Besolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  taking  out  of  tlie  hands  of 
the  Engineer  Bureau,  contrary  to  the  ordinary  routine  of  business, 
the  negotiations  for  the  purchase  of  this  property,  acted  improperly  ; 
and  that  in  contracting  to  purchase  it  on  the  28th  of  April,  1857,  for 
$200,000,  a  sum  exceeding  by  $100,000  that  whicli  he  thought 
'^exorbitant"  on  the  31st  of  March,  1857,  and  for  which  the  evi- 
dence shows  it  might  have  been  then  purchased,  acted  in  an  injudi- 
cious and  im])rovident  manner. 

Besolved,  That  the  price  paid  lor  this  property  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  was  exorbitant  and  unjust. 

JOHN  B.  HASKIN, 
Cliairman  of  the  Committee. 


WILKINS     OR   WILLETTS   POINT    INVESTIGATION,  23 


MR,  HOPKIXS"  VIEWS  OX  THE  MLLETT'S  POINT 
INYESTICtATIOX.  CONCURRED  IN  BY  MR,  FLORENCE, 

Resolved^  That  a  special  committee,  consisting  of  five  members,  be 
appointed  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  facts  and  circumstances 
connected  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  a  tract  of  land  at  Wilkins'  or 
Willett's  Point,  in  the  county  of  Queens  and  State  of  New  York,  op- 
posite Fort  Schuyler,  purchased  by  the  government  for  fortification 
purposes  during  the  year  1857,  and  that  said  committee  be,  and  they 
are  hereby,  authorized  to  send  for  persons  and  papers. 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  committee  appointed  to  examine 
into  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  purchase  of  the 
Willett's  Point  property  by  the  government  of  the  United  States,  have 
had  the  same  under  consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  submit  the  follow- 
ing report: 

The  committee  have  given  to  the  subject  committed  to  their  charge 
the  most  patient  and  laborious  examination,  and  they  have  allowed  to 
the  investigation  the  widest  possible  range.  Its  scope,  indeed,  as 
the  evidence  will  disclose,  was  limited  only  by  the  exclusion  of  an  in- 
quisitorial intrusion  upon  private  affairs  and  transactions  wholly  dis- 
connected with  the  subject  of  this  investigation.  And  even  this  limit 
has  not  been  observed  with  all  the  sanctity  it  should  have  been  ;  for, 
in  accordance  with  tlie  special  desire  of  those  who  were  to  be  chiefly 
affected  by  the  results  of  the  investigation  that  the  door  of  inquiry 
should  be  opened  wide,  the  committee  yielded,  perhaps,  too  far  to  the 
spirit  of  determination,  evidently  exhibited,  to  find  somewhere  or  other, 
and  somehow  or  other,  cause  for  animadversion  or  crimination. 

Of  the  motive  that  prompted  the  investigation  the  undersigned  have 
nothing  to  say.  Of  that  each  one  must  judge  for  himself,  from  the 
evidence  submitted  with  this  report.  Their  province  is  an  honest  and 
impartial  dealing  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  those  facts  briefly  and 
chiefly  are  : 

That  a  long  time  since,  as  far  back  as  the  year  1820,  the  necessity 
for  a  fortification  at  Willett's  Point,  as  a  most  important  national  de- 
fence, was  urged  upon  the  government  by  the  highest  authority  ;  by 
(to  use  the  language  of  Gen.  Totten)  "  the  first  board  of  engineers/' 
among  whom  was  the  celebrated  Gen.  Bernard. 

That  an  appropriation  for  this  object  was — to  quote  again  the  words 
of  General  Totten — "recommended  with  a  great  deal  of  emphasis 
several  times.  "' 

That,  in  pursuance  of  these  repeated  recommendations.  Congress 
finally,  by  an  act  approved  March  3,  1857,  appropriated  "  for  the 
commencement  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New  York,"  the  sum 
of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

That  soon  after  the  said  appropriation  was  made,  tlie  necessary  ne- 
gotiations were  commenced  by  the  engineer  department  for  the  pur- 


24  WILKINS'   OR  WILLETT'S  POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

chase   of  Willett's   Point — about   110   acres   of  land,   or   130  acres 
including  the  water  front — for  the  site  of  the  proposed  fortification. 

And,  finally,  that  upon  carefull  inquiry  into  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty, after  consultation  with  the  cabinet,  and  with  its  approbation, 
Willett's  Point  was  purchased  at  the  price  of  tw®  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

In  ordinary  times,  such  a  transaction,  being  but  a  common  business 
act  of  a  department  of  the  government,  would  have  passed  without 
complaint.  The  integrity  of  the  act  would  have  been  a  matter  of 
universal  presumption.  But  in  the  present  exasperated  state  of  party 
politics,  and  heated  local  strife  between  factions  of  the  same  party^ 
there  is  little  charity  with  those  who  are  out  of  power  for  those  who 
are  in  ;  and  hence  the  purchase  of  the  Willetts'  Point  property  by  the 
government  has  been  made  the  subject  of  grave  accusation  against  the 
functionary  who  made  it,  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  other  officers  of 
the  government.  ^ 

From  the  tenor  of  interrogation  pursued  by  the  member  of  the  com- 
mittee who  originated  the  investigation,  it  is  most  manifest  that  the 
purpose  was,  and  the  evident  effort  is,  to  fix  upon  the  Secretary  of 
War  the  following  grave  imputations  :  First,  that  he  violated  the  law 
in  giving  more  for  the  purchased  land  than  the  amount  of  the  appro- 
priation. Secondly,  that  he  gave  more  for  the  property  than  it  could 
have  been  bought  for.  Thirdly,  that  much  more  was  given  than  the 
land  was  really  worth  ;  and  lastly,  that  the  Secretary  of  War  was  a 
party  to  a  combination  to  effect  the  sale  of  the  property  at  an  exor- 
bitant price. 

The  committee  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  there  is  nothing  in  all 
the  voluminous  testimony,  or  in  the  facts  of  the  case,  to  lend  even  the 
faintest  color  to  any  one  of  these  insinuations. 

I.  As  for  the  excess  of  the  price  paid  over  the  amount  of  the  appro- 
priation made,  the  language  of  the  act  of  Congress  is  a  sufficient  ex- 
planation and  vindication. 

The  words  of  the  law  are  as  follows  :  ^^  For  the  commencement  of  a 
fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New  York,  one  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars." — (See  sess.  acts  1856  and  1857,  page  191.) 

Had  the  appropriation  been  one  complete,  separate,  final  ap- 
propriation for  the  purchase  of  the  site  of  the  fort,  most  clearly 
the  law  would  have  been  transcended  by  exceeding  tlie  amount 
of  the  appropriation;  but  there  was  no  special,  independent,  entire 
appropriation  for  the  purchase  of  a  site.  The  appropriation  is 
general — is  in  its  express  terms  but  the  initiatory  step  towards  the 
construction  of  a  great  work  of  national  defence,  upon  which  the  will 
of  Congress  had  formally  and  solemnly  resolved.  It  does  not,  on  its 
face,  pretend  to  be  complete  and  final.  Future  appropriations  to 
carry  out  a  great  work  of  public  policy  are  evidently  intended,  for  no 
one  is  stupid  enough  to  suppose  that  the  contemplated  fortification 
could  be  built  for  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars. 
Congress,  then,  having  resolved  on  the  policy  oi' building  a  fort  oppo- 
site to  Fort  Schuyler — that  being  a  settlod  thing — and  the  purchase 
of  the  site  for  the  fort  being  the  first  step  towards  the  consummation 
of  this  policy^  there  could  be  no  violation  either  of  the  spirit  or  letter 


WILKINS'   OR  WILLETT'S   POINT  INVESTIGATION.  25 

of  the  law  in  making  purchase  of  the  site.  The  purchase  of  a  site  on 
the  hest  practicable  terms  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  abso- 
lutely necessary  means  for  effecting  a  particular,  and  settled,  and  ap- 
proved end.  Indeed,  the  direction  to  the  Secretary  of  War  to  ''  com- 
mence'" a  fortification  carries  with  it,  necessarily  and  irresistibly,  the 
discretion  and  power  to  purchase  the  site  on  any  reasonable  terms, 
more  particularly  when  there  is  no  limitation  as  to  price,  or  no  speci- 
fic sum  fixed  by  law  for  acquiring  the  site. 

How  could  the  fortification  \)q  ^^  commenced"  ^\i\iout  a  previous 
acquisition  of  the  site  on  which  it  was  to  be  erected  ?  and  if,  after 
Congress  had  indicated  its  will  that  the  work  should  be  ''  commenced  " 
and  had  prescribed  no  fixed  price  for  a  site,  the  Secretary  of  War  had 
declined  commencing  it  because  he  could  not  purchase  the  site  within 
a  particular  sum,  would  he  not  have  been  amenable  to  the  charge  of 
frustrating,  at  least  for  a  time,  the  legislative  purpose  and  will  ? 

It  is  true  that  General  Totten,  in  his  examination  before  the  com- 
mittee, is  made,  seemingly,  to  bear  testimony  against  the  view  just  pre- 
sented, but  the  adverse  bearing  is  rather  seeming  than  real,  for  his 
answer  is  in  response  to  a  particular  form  of  inquiry,  deceptively  put, 
and  does  not  touch  the  point  in  controversy. 

The  question  propounded  to  General  Totten  was  the  following  : 

"  Has  it  been  the  custom  of  the  War  Department  to  pay  more  than 
the  specific  appropriation  for  property  during  your  connexion 
with  it?" 

Answer.  "■  I  have  no  knowledge  of  such  a  case.  If  there  has  been, 
it  has  not  been  within  my  experience." — (See  page  90.) 

Here  both  the  question  and  the  answer  refer  to  a  case  of  specific 
appropriation  for  specific  property.  In  such  a  case  an  excess  of 
price  paid  over  and  above  a  specific  amount  of  appropriation,  for  a 
specific  object,  would  have  been  in  derogation  of  law.  But  in  the 
Willett's  Point  purchase  no  such  case  is  presented.  There  was  no 
specific  property  named_,  and  no  specific  price  prescribed  for  its  pur- 
chase. As  before  said,  the  appropriation  was  initiatory  only  ;  made, 
not  to  purcliase  this  property  or  that,  at  this  or  that  price,  but  to  put 
on  foot,  to  ^^  commence  a  fortification  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New 
York."  It  was  based,  evidently,  on  the  idea  of  all  such  future  ap- 
propriations as  might  be  necessary  to  complete  the  work,  in  all  its 
parts,  from  the  purchase  of  the  foundation  to  the  laying  of  the  last 
stone,  and  the  planting  of  the  last  gun. 

And  so  as  to  the  testimony  of  Judge  Black,  the  Attorney  General. 
There  is  manifest  purpose  to  make  his  opinion  bear  against  the  legality 
of  the  Willett's  Point  purchase  ;  but,  on  critical  examination,  it  will 
be  found,  like  Gen.  Totten's,  in  nowise  antagonistic. 

The  question  is  very  dexterously  propounded,  if  the  government 
had  made  a  specific  appropriation  of  $150,000  for  the  purchase  of 
Willett's  Point,  would  he  (the  Attorney  General)  have  recommended 
a  purchase  at  $200,000? 

As  the  question  was  put.  Judge  Black  answered  correctly,  that 
**  neither  the  War  Department  nor  any  other  department  of  the 
government  is  authorized  to  expend  more  money  than  is  appropriated 
or  a  particular  purpose.' ' 


26  WILKINS'    OR    WILLETT'S    POINT    IN  ESTIGATION. 

But  the  true  question  should  have  been,  if  Congress  had  appropriated 
s,  certain  sum  to  commence  a  fortification,  not  limiting  the  price  to  be 
paid  for  tlie  site,  and  the  site  could  not  be  had  for  that  certain  sum, 
would  it  have  been  legal  to  contract  to  pay  more  than  that  certain 
sum  for  the  site?  In  this  form,  doubtless,  a  very  different  answer 
would  have  been  given.  Judge  Black  evidently  did  not  have  before 
him,  at  the  time  of  his  examination,  the  appropriation  act  of  March  3, 
1857,  or  he  would  have  given  a  different  opinion  ;  for  the  subject  had 
been  officially  submitted  to  him  while  it  was  in  progress,  and  he  had 
sanctioned  and  approved  it  as  the  legal  adviser  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

But  General  Totten  is  mistaken  when  he  says  that  there  was  no  in- 
stance within  his  experience  of  a  purchase  of  property  exceeding  a  spe- 
cific appropriation.  It  was  done,  and  by  General  Totten  himself,  in  the 
Fort  Tompkins  addition,  and  no  later  than  August  of  last  year.  In 
this  case,  the  land  (IT  acres)  was  purchased  at  $2,500  per  acre,  and  the 
appropriation  was  $-f2,300,  and,  unlike  that  which  was  made  for  com- 
mencing the  fort  at  Willett's  Point,  was  complete  and  final  in  its  terms. 
Yet,  for  certain,  reasons,  '^  it  was  thought  better  by  General  Totten  to 
pay  the  additional  $200." — (See  testimony  of  Captain  Wright,  p.  227.) 
This  may  not  have  been  strictly  legal.  If  not,  perhaps  it  was  justified, 
or  it  may  at  least  be  excused  by  the  exigency  of  the  case.  But  no 
matter  what  the  reason  of  the  act,  it  shows  clearly  that  the  govern- 
ment has  not,  in  all  cases,  confined  itself  to  the  exact  amount  even  of 
specific  appropriations,  and  that  General  Totten' s  testimony  on  the 
question  is  to  that  extent  at  least  at  fault. 

In  conclusion  on  this  point,  it  is  very  well  known  that  it  has  been 
the  practice  of  the  government  where  incipient  appropriations  are 
made  with  the  evident  purpose  of  future  appropriations,  to  exceed 
by  anticipative  contracts  the  existing  appropriations ;  and  thus, 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  it  being  impracticable  to  contract 
for  half  finishing,  or  fractionally  finishing,  the  various  classes  of  the 
work  upon  public  structures.  Almost  all  the  public  edifices  con- 
structed by  the  government,  including  the  Capitol  in  which  Congress 
sits,  are  constructed  under  contracts  anticipative  as  to  the  greater  part 
of  the  expenditures  upon  them. 

II.  As  to  the  second  point,  that  the  land  might  have  been  bought 
for  less  than  was,  in  the  end,  paid  for  it. 

The  undersigned  do  not  scruple  to  declare  their  entire  conviction 
that,  if  at  any  time  the  land  at  Willett's  Point  could  have  been  pur- 
chased for  less  than  the  sum  actually  paid  for  it,  $200,000,  there  is  no 
sort  of  blame  or  responsibility  for  it  resting  upon  the  Secretary  of 
War. 

The  very  first  intimation  made  to  the  War  Department  in  regard 
to  the  purchasing  of  land  for  a  fortification  'S'»pposite  Fort  Schuyler" 
was  contained  in  a  confidential  letter  from  Major  Barnard,  the  local 
engineer,  to  General  Totten,  the  engineer-in-chief,  dated  March  24, 
1857.  In  that  letter  the  engineer-in-chief  is  informed  that  Willett's 
Point  is  ^'  far  the  most  eligible  site  ;"  that  Mr.  Wissmann,  the  then 
proprietor,  had  made  a  proposition  to  take  for  the  property  $1,000  per 
acre,  and  $15,000  for  improvements  ;  and  authority  is  asked  for  him 
(Major  Barnard)    ''to  tender   Mr.    Wissmann  $100,000  for   the   111 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  27 

acres  he  owns  beyond  the  creek  ;  or,  if  he  positively  declines  this,  to 
have  the  authority  to  offer  from  $750  to  $1,000  per  acre,  upon  actual 
survey  of  the  land,  and  to  compensate  him  for  his  improvements  by  a 
liberal  appraisement." — (See  Major  Barnard's  letter,  pp.  2,  3,  5. 

Now  it  seems  to  be  inferred,  and  those  who  are  on  the  lookout  to 
find  ground  for  accusation  will  doubtless  charge,  that  the  property 
at  Willett's  Point  ought  to  have  been  purchased  on  Mr.  Wissmann's 
proposal,  for  by  it  the  government  w^ould'have  saved  $70,000. 

But  it  so  happens  that  this  letter  of  fdajor  Barnard  and  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  Wissmann  were  not  in  time  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of 
War. 

General  Totten  says,  it  is  true,  that  he  ^^  earhj"  communicated  to 
the  Secretary  of  War  Mr.  Wissmann's  proposition. — (See  his  evidence, 

p.  90.). 

In  this  General  Totten  is  mistaken.  He  did  not  do  what,  unques- 
tionably, he  ought  to  have  done.  He  did  not  communicate  to  Gov- 
ernor Floyd  the  contents  of  Major  Barnard's  letter,  and  the  substance 
of  Mr.  Wissmann's  proposition.  On  the  contrary,  he  responds  to  Major 
Barnard's  letter  of  the  24th  March,  by  a  letter  dated  the  26th  of  March, 
(see  p.  247,)  as  follows  : 

*'  I  have  no  idea  that  the  Secretar}^  of  War  will  authorize  an  offer 
to  Mr.  Wissmann  of  the  sum  you  mention  for  his  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point,  and  therefore  have  not  submitted  your  proposition  to  him." 

Had  it  been  forlhioith  submitted  to  the  Secretary,  short  as  was  the 
time,  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Wissmann  might  have  been  considered 
and  accepted.  It  might  have  been  submitted  on  the  25th  of  March, 
for  on  that  day  it  must  have  been  received,  and  between  the  25th  and 
Slst  of  March  the  matter  might  have  been  considered  by  the  Secretary 
and  the  cabinet,  and  arranged  before  the  property  passed  from 
Wissmann  to  Irving,  which  took  place  on  the  first  of  April  following, 
as  the  sequel  will  show. 

Up  to  the  26th  of  March,  then,  Governor  Floyd  was  kept  in 
ignorance  of  Wissmann's  proposition  to  sell  out  at  $130,000. 
There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  he  knew  anytliing  of  it  on  the 
27th,  28th,  29th,  or  30th  of  March,  for  the  same  reason  that 
induced  General  Totten  not  to  submit  Major  Barnard's  letter;  and 
Mr.  Wissmann's  proposition  on  the  26th  would  equally  move  him  to 
withhold  it  on  the  27th,  28th,  29th,  and  30th  instants,  during  which 
he  supposed  Major  Barnard  to  be  acting  under  his  instructions  of  the 
26th  March  directing  him  to  proceed  to  Albany  to  procure  an  act  of 
condemnation.  It  appears  from  General  Totten's  testimony,  (see 
pages  89,  90,)  and  his  letter,  that  his  decided  preference  in  this  par- 
ticular purchase,  though  not  in  others,  was  for  a  condemnation  and 
assessment  by  a  jury,  which. indicates  the  absence  of  all  proneness  oa 
his  part  to  urge  the  acceptance  of  a  purchase  in  any  other  mode. 

The  significant  question,  then,  arises,  when  did  the  Secretary  of 
War  first  have  notice  of  Major  Barnard's  letter  and  Mr.  Wissmann's 
proposition  ? 

According  to  the  positive-  statement  of  Governor  Floyd,  (which  is 
fortified  by  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,)  not  until  his  attention 
was  arrested  by  a  telegraphic  communication  from  Major  Barnard  to 


28  AVILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

General  Totten  of  the  31st  Marcli,  (see  p.  252,)  apprising  the  latter 
that  unless  the  bargain  was  instantly  closed  with  Wissmann  the 
property  would  pass  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  and  the  government 
be  then  forced  to  pay  an  exorbitant  price. 

It  seems  that  on  the  night  of  the  26th  of  March,  1857,  Major  Bar- 
nard (see  his  letter  of  March  2*7)  had  got  information  of  the  existence 
of  a  conditional  but  written  jontract  between  Wissmann  and  a  Mr. 
Irving  to  the  effect  that  if  the  government  did  not  close  the  purchase 
with  Wissmann  at  $120,000  by  the  1st  day  of  April,  the  said  Irving 
was  at  liberty  to  take  the  property  at  $130,000.  Accordingly,  fear- 
ing, as  he  says,  that  the  government  would  lose  largely  by  a  condem- 
nation of  the  land,  and  that  unless  Wissmann's  proposition  should  be 
accepted  before  the  1st  of  April,  the  land  would  pass  into  the 
hands  of  speculators,  and  the  government  be  then  forced  to 
pay  an  exorbitant  price,  he  again,  by  letters  dated  the  28th  and 
30th  of  March,  urgently  appealed  to  the  head  of  the  bureau  for 
authority  to  close  immediately  with  Mr.  Wissmann  ;  and  on  the  31st 
March  a  telegraphic  despatch  was  sent  by  Major  Barnard  to  General 
Totten  to  the  same  effect. — (See  letters  of  Major  Barnard,  of  above 
date  ;  see  also  Major  B.'s  testimony,  pp.  173,  74,  75  ;  also  telegraphic 
despatch  of  31st  March,  filed  with  the  papers  in  the  case.) 

Now  it  was  this  telegraphic  despatch,  communicated  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  late  in  the  evening  of  the  31st  of  March,  just  as  he  was  leaving 
his  office,  as  he  says,  that  conveyed  to  him  the  first  intelligence  of  any 
negotiations  being  in  progress  for  the  purchase  of  the  property,  and  of 
the  urgent  necessity  for  an  immediate  decision  on  Mr.  Wissmann's 
proposition. 

So  that  only  two  days  elapsed  from  the  time  the  engineer  bureau 
was  written  to  on  the  subject  until  the  sale  from  Wissmann  to  Irving 
was  actually  made  and  closed,  and  only  a  fraction  of  a  day  between 
the  time  Governor  Floyd  was  first  apprised  of  Wissmann's  propo- 
sition, and  the  consummation  of  the  sale  from  Wissmann  to  Irving. 
If  he  had  been  apprised  by  General  Totten  of  the  proposition 
on  the  25th,  when  General  Totten  received  it,  he  might  have  laid  it 
the  same  day  before  the  cabinet,  and  might  have  seen  the  urgency  of 
the  need  for  immediate  action  before  the  31st  of  March.  But  the  fail- 
ure of  General  Totten  to  communicate  the  ''^  confidential  letter  of 
Major  Barnard  to  him  precluded  from  him  not  only  all  action,  but 
all  knowledge  of  the  subject. 

Well,  the  1st  of  April  came,  and  on  that  day  the  contract  between 
Wissmann  and  Irving  was  executed  and  made  absolute,  and  Irving  be- 
came the  proprietor  of  Willett's  Point. 

Thus,  before  the  Secretary  had  had  time  to  act,  with  a  small  frac- 
tion of  a  day  before  him,  the  Willett's  Point  property  had  passed  into 
the  hands  of  a  third  party,  in  whose  hands,  of  course,  the  whole  sub- 
ject assumed  a  new  i)hase,  and  presented  a  new  basis  of  negotiation. 

Now,  the  question  comes  up,  what,  under  these  circumstances,  should 
the  Secretary  of  War  have  done?  With  a  "  surprise  popped  upon 
him"  in  a  most  important  matter,  with  none  of  the  material  and 
guiding  facts  be'ore  him,  should  he  have  issued  without  examination 
the  order  for  the  closinj^  of  the  transaction  with  Mr.  Wissmann  or 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT    INVESTIGATION.  29 

t 

any  one  else?  Should  he  have  proceeded,  on  this  short  notice,  to  a 
decision  on  so  grave  a  matter,  and  that,  too,  when  his  chief  engineer, 
regarding  Wissmann's  price  as  exorbitant,  and  preferring  condemna- 
tion of  the  land  to  a  private  contract  of  sale,  would  have  dissented 
from  his  action,  and  when  that  officer  did  not  attach  sufficient  signifi- 
cance to  Wissmann's  proposal  to  induce  him  to  bring  it  to  the  notice 
of  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 

The  undersigned  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  Secretary  acted  in  the 
premises  with  a  wise  caution,  which  is  deserving  of  high  commenda- 
tion rather  than  of  censure.  ^'  I  declined  to  do  it,  (says  Gov.  Floyd, 
in  his  own  words,)  for  it  was  a  thing  I  had  never  consulted  the  cabi- 
net about  at  all  ;  it  was  my  first  money  transaction,  and  so  I  was  not 
inclined  to  do  it."  This  was  just  such  prudence  and  wisdom  as  should 
characterize  the  action  of  all  public  agents.  Had  he  pursued  a  differ- 
ent course,  acting  without  conference  with  his  colleagues  and  the 
President,  it  would  have  been  an  act  of  official  haste  and  recklessness, 
dangerous  as  a  precedent,  and  censurable  to  the  last  degree.  It  were 
far  more  honorable  to  the  Secretary  to  have  allowed,  and  far  safer  for 
the  public  interests  to  have  suffered,  under  the  circumstances,  the  loss 
of  the  whole  value  of  the  Willett's  Point  property  than  to  have  set  an 
example  of  precipitation  without  record  in  the  history  of  our  civil  ad- 
ministration, and  which  would  have  involved  in  disgrace  alike  the 
government  and  its  administrative  officer.  Then,  indeed,  might  his 
assailants  have  with  success  impeached  the  integrity  of  his  act  ;  for 
his  precipitate  acceptance,  within  the  fraction  of  a  day,  of  a  proffer 
which  the  head  of  the  bureau  had  rejected  but  a  day  or  two  before  as 
extortionate,  would  have  really  subjected  him  to  severe  animadversion. 
The  committee  conclude  that  if  there  is  any  blame  resting  on  any 
one  for  not  obtainiug  the  Willett's  Point  property  at  a  less  price,  it 
lies  not  upon  the  Secretary  of  War. 

A  captious  spirit  might  take  ground  that  the  Secretary  of  War  should 
be  held  responsible  for  all  the  acts,  both  of  omission  and  commission,  of 
his  chief  engineer  and  of  all  his  subordinates.  It  would  be  a  sufficient 
answer  to  so  unreasonable  a  notion  that  it  is  physically  impracticable 
for  any  head  of  a  department  to  attend  to  all  the  details  of  business  in 
the  various  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  his  department ;  that  there 
must  be  trust  in  every  bureau,  and  that  to  the  Engineer  Bureau  is  con- 
fided the  task  of  taking  the  initiatory  movements  for  the  acquiring  of 
property  in  the  military  department  of  the  United  States.  If  there 
has  been  in  this  matter  any  want  of  promptness  in  that  bureau,  or  if 
it  has  committed  errors  of  judgment  or  of  any  other  kind,  the  head  of 
that  bureau  is  censurable,  not  the  Secretary  of  War. 

It  may  be  alleged  in  behalf  of  General  Totten,  that  he  regarded 
Wissmann's  price  as  totally  inadmissible,  and  that  it  was  safer 
for  the  government  to  pursue  the  process  of  condemnation  and 
appraisement,  and  he  may  have  regarded  Governor  Floyd  as  en- 
tertaining on  these  points  the  same  opinion  with  himself,  and, 
therefore,  he  may  not  have  thought  fit  promptly  to  advise  his 
superior  officer  ot  the  proposition  contained  in  the  letter  of  Major 
Barnard,  of  the  24th  ot  March,  1857,  but  the  undersigned  are  con- 
strained to  conclude  that  it  was  an  official  error  in  the  engineer- 
in-chief  not  to  have  communicated  to  the  Secretary,  at  the  earliest 


30  WILKINS'    OR    WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

possible  moment,  that  letter  of  the  24th  of  March,  and  all  subsequent 
ones  to  the  same  effect,  which,  for  some  reason  which  the  undersigned 
cannot  comprehend,  seem  to  have  been  marked  private  or  confidential. 
The  result  might  have  been  the  acquisition  of  the  Willett's  Point 
property  at  the  rate  proposed  by  Wissmann — $120,000  for  the  whole. 

III.  The  opportunity  for  obtaining  the  site  on  Wissmann 's  propo- 
sition having  been  lost,  and  Willett's  Point  having  passed  into  the 
proprietorship  of  Irving,  the  inquiry,  of  course,  next  arose,  at  what 
price  the  property  could  be  had  under  the  new  circumstances  of  the 
case. 

On  this  point  the  undersigned  must  do  the  Secretary  of  War  the 
justice  to  say,  that  every  precaution  seems  to  have  been  taken  for  the 
obtaining  of  the  land  on  the  best  possible  terms. 

Two  modes  of  arriving  at  the  value  of  the  property  seem  to  have 
been  considered :  first,  that  of  condemnation  and  assessment  by  a 
jury  ;  and,  secondly,  a  direct  purchase  from  the  new  proprietor. 

On  consideration,  the  former  plan  was  abandoned,  and,  the  under- 
signed think,  properly. 

In  the  start.  Major  Barnard  seems  to  have  favored,  decidedly^  the 
proceeding  by  condemnation,  but,  on  inquiry  and  subsequent  reflec- 
tion, he  was  constrained  to  conclude  that  this  plan  of  ascertaining  the 
value  was  a  most  unsafe  one  for  the  government.  « 

In  his  letter  to  General  Totten,  of  March  28,  1857,  (Appendix  Gr,  pp. 
249,  250,)  he  says: 

^^  Now,  in  reference  to  that,  (the  condemnation  of  the  land,)  further 
reflection  and  knowledge  of  the  actual  state  of  things  has  induced  me 
to  hesitate  about  its  expediency,  and,  before  going  to  Albany  with 
that  object,  I  think  it  best  to  consult  you." 

After  stating  that  the  construction  of  a  fort  at  Willett's  Point 
would  "damage  all  the  property  around,"  and  that  this  damage 
would  all  be  taken  into  the  account  by  a  jury  so  as  to  "  make  the 
United  States  pay  heavily  for  coming  there,"  he  says  : 

"  I  give  it  as  my  firm  conviction,  that  if  the  United  States  seize  this 
property _,  they  ivill  not  get  it  for  the  existing  appropriation,  and  that 
not  only  delay  in  the  commencing  of  the  work,  but  a  delay  in  obtaining 
the  title  will  ensue." 

And,  in  his  letter  to  General  Totten,  of  March  30,  1857,  he  writes: 

"  No  jury  will  assess  at  less  than  $100,000,  and  by  artful  manage- 
ment a  jury  may  be  got  to  assess  at  $150,000  or  $200,000.  The  prop- 
erty will  immediately  go  into  the  hands  of  speculators.  The  $5,000 
they  have  to  pay  on  Wednesday  to  bind  Mr.  Wissmann  is  a  small  sum, 
compared  with  what  they  hope  to  make,  and  they  will  risk  it  ;  and 
then,  possessing  the  nominal  title,  they  will  use  every  artifice  and 
influence,  political  and  pecuniary,  with  the  people  about  to  compel 
the  United  States  to  pay  roundly." 

Juries,  in  assessing  the  value  of  property  for  government  purposes, 
are  not  apt  to  estimate  with  reference  to  what  its  value  would  be  in 
private  hands,  but  with  reference  chiefly  to  its  value  to  the  govern- 
ment ;  and,  when  the  immense  interests  designed  to  be  protected  by 
a  seaboard  fortification  commanding  the  entrance  to  a  commercial  har- 
bor   are  taken  into  consideration,  it  is  readily  seen  how  a  jury  would 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  31 

value  the  site  for  such  a  fortification  to  the  government  at  a  heavy 
price. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  ascertainment  of  value  hy  appraisement, 
whether  hy  a  jury  or  arbitrators,  seems  to  have  been  always  unfortu- 
nate for  the  government,  and  to  have  been  very  seldom  resorted  to  by 
the  Engineer  Bureau. 

In  the  case  of  the  New  Bedford  purchase  of  60  acres,  (said  not  to 
have  been  worth  over  $300  per  acre,  and  assessed  at  only  $12,000  for 
the  wliole,)  the  question  of  price  was  referred  to  a  board  of  three  gen- 
tlemen, "  the  most  prominent  as  to  wealth  and  respectability  in  the 
city  of  New  Bedford  ;"  and  yet  these  prominent  and  respectable  gen- 
tlemen assessed  the  60  acres  at  $1,300  per  acre,  the  government  referee 
himself  putting  it  down  at  $1,250. — (See  Captain  Benham's  testi- 
mony, pp.  186,  187,  188.) 

And  so  it  will  ever  be.  It  is  the  nature  of  the  case.  Few  men 
sympathize  in  money  matters  with  the  government.  The  sympathy 
is  rather  with  the  citizen,  and  the  ability  of  the  government  to  pay 
being  regarded  as  almost  unlimited,  it  seldom,  if  ever^  has  a  fair 
chance  in  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents  between  it  and  the  citizen. 

Besides,  the  plan  of  condemnation  is  ever  an  odious  one  ''Sometimes 
(says  Hon.  Howell  Cobb,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,)  there  are  circum- 
stances which  make  it  necessary  to  proceed  by  condemnation.  My 
own  impression  is,  the  government  ought  to  resort  to  condemnation  as 
little  as  possible.  It  is  a  very  odious  mode  of  getting  possession  of 
property,  and  ought  to  be  avoided  when  it  can  ;  but  there  are  cases  in 
which  we  are  compelled  to  resort  to  it." 

The  Secretary  of  War  having,  the  undersigned  think,  for  sufficient 
reasons,  abandoned  the  design  of  proceeding  by  condemnation,  another 
plan  was  adopted,  that  of  ascertaining  the  value  through  persons  in 
New  York  in  whom  the  government  had  confidence.  This  plan  was- 
undoubtedly  a  good  one,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  adopted  in  cabinet, 
for  the  Hon.  Howell  Cobb  states  that  he  has  an  indistinct  recollection 
that  he  suggested  Mr.  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler,  the  collector  and  post- 
master of  New  York,  as  the  commission  to  ascertain  the  value  of  the 
land,  and  the  Secretary  of  War  states  that  the  President  himself  sug- 
gested the  last  clause  of  his  (the  Secretary's  letter)  to  Mr.  Schell,, 
commissioning  him  and  Mr.  Fowler  to  act  in  the  matter. 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler  were  commissioned,  by  let- 
ter of  the  Secretary  of  13th  of  April,  1857,  "to  ascertain,  as  far  as 
practicable,  and  by  such  means  as  they  could  fully  rely  upon,  the  fair 
value  of  the  land."  And  they  were  desired  to  ''  fortify  their  opinions 
by  those  of  such  real  estate  agents  as  deserve  the  confidence  of  the 
community  from  their  standing  and  intelligence." — (See  Governor 
Floyd's  letter,  p.  5.) 

On  the  24th  of  April  this  commission  reported  to  the  War  Depart- 
ment that  they  had  made  inquiry  as  to  the  value  of  the  property- 
known  as  Willett's  Point ;  that  it  was  the  ''most  eligible  and  desirable 
position  for  the  erection  of  summer  houses  ;"  that  the  "  land  fronting 
on  the  water  in  that  vicinity  v^as  held  by  the  owners  at  from  $1,000 
to  $3,000  per  acre  ;"  and  that,  from  the  result  of  their  inquiries  and 
from  personal  in8X)ection  of  the  property,  they  thought,  "  if  the  quan- 


32  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

tity  of  land  was  as  represented,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  thousand  dollars 
could  not  he  considered  an  exorbitant  price.'' 

The  opinion  of  these  gentlemen,  the  undersigned  suppose,  should 
be  regarded  as  at  once  conclusive  as  to  the  value  of  the  land.  They 
are  gentlemen  of  high  standing  and  high  position  in  the  service  and 
confidence  of  the  government,  and  under  no  motive  to  render  any  but 
an  impartial  decision.  "  It  seemed  very  proper  to  me  (says  the  Hon. 
Mr.  Cobb)  that  two  officers  of  the  government  should  be  sent,  and  my 
mind  was  impressed  with  the  idea  that  it  was  the  best  protection  the 
government  could  have."  But  this  opinion  of  the  commissioners 
(Messrs.  Schell  and  Fowler)  is  sustained  by  an  overwhelming  amount 
of  corroborating  testimony.  Some  of  the  witnesses,  it  is  true,  do  not 
attach  so  large  a  value,  though  none  of  them  fix  it  at  less  than  $500 
per  acre  ;  but  the  undersigned  believe  that  the  more  intelligent  and 
reliable  evidence  upholds  the  estimate  of  Messrs.  Schell  and  Fowler. 

Four  real  estate  brokers  (see  p.  7)  estimate  at  $2,250  per  acre,  and 
for  the  improvements,  deposit  of  stone,  &c.,  $20,000  in  addition. 

Major  Barnard,  in  his  letter  of  the  24th  of  March,  already  so  often 
refierred  to,  says : 

^'  You  see  how  high  lands  are  actually  held  all  along  the  shore.  Now, 
the  testimony  of  the  residents  is,  that  Wilkins'  Point  is  really  unri- 
valled for  the  objects  which  give  these  lands  such  value,  viz :  for 
country  seats  for  the  wealthy." 

General  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  (see  his  testimony,  pp.  62,  63,)  basing 
his  opinions  not  upon  speculative  data,  but  upon  the  value  of  property 
in  the  neighborhood,  rates  the  value,  even  as  a  private  speculation,  at 
1250,000. 

John  C.  Mather  says,  (see  p.  88  :)  "  From  what  information  I  have 
received,  I  believe  the  government  has  bought  the  property  for  $50,000 
less  than  it  is  worth." 

Mr.  Day,  who  purchased  a  part  of  the  Willett's  Point  tract,  would 
not  take  less  than  $1,500  an  acre  for  his  land,  and  improvements  to  be 
paid  for  beside.  He  states,  moreover,  that  a  Mr.  French  had  sold 
his  land,  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Willett's  Point,  for  $3,000  per 
acre. —  (Seep.  179.)  ^'  I  would  state  (he  adds)  that  I  cannot  buy  land 
between  the  Neck  and  New  York,  with  such  water  front  and  other 
desirable  points,  for  less  than  $1^500  per  acre.  I  cannot  buy  laud  on 
the  North  river,  within  fifty  miles  of  New  York,  with  fine  views,  for 
less  than  from  $1,700  to  $2,000  per  acre." — (See  Appendix  No.  11.) 

Henry  Fringes  says  he  bought  22  acres  last  year  at  $1,250  per  acre, 
and  sold  at  $3,000;  another  parcel  at  $1,500  to  $1,600  per  acre  ; 
another  at  $2,500  per  acre  ;  another,  of  37  acres,  for  $3,000  per  acre 
for  the  front,  and  $2,000  for  the  upper  part ;  a  lot  of  six  acres  for 
$3,000,  and  of  four  acres  for  $2,500  per  acre  ;  that  he  regarded  Wil- 
lett's Point  as  worth,  for  speculating  purposes,  at  least  SI, 000  per 
acre,  and  tliat  if  he  owned  it  he  shoukl  hold  it  at  $3,000  per  acre. — 
(See  his  evidence,  pp.  215^  216.) 

Henry  Grinnel,  while  he  modestly  states  that  he  was  not  a  good 
judge  in  the  matter,  declares  that  he,  for  his  unimproved  10  acres  in 
the  vicinity  of  Willett's  Point,  would  not  take  less  than  $3,000  per 


WILKINS'    OR    WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  33 

acre.     ^^  Property  along  there,  (Willett's  Point,)  he  says,  is  hecoming 
very  valuable,  and  is  rapidly  increasing." — (See  p.  221.) 

William  Weeks,  being  asked  what  he  regarded  the  value  of  the 
Willett's  Point  land,  replied  as  follows: 

''  I  judge  the  value  of  that  property,  by  comparing  it  with  other 
property  in  that  section  of  the  country  which  has  been  sold.  I  con- 
ceive that  $2,000  an  acre  would  not  be  extravagant  for  it — some  por- 
tions of  it  particularly.  I  have  sold  property  in  that  section,  and 
near  it,  for  private  residences,  at  $1,500  an  acre,  which  I  did  not  con- 
ceive so  well  located." 

In  reply  to  the  question  whether  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress 
had  not  had  the  effect  of  enhancing  the  value  of  Willett's  Point,  he 
said  : 

^*  There  is  no  doubt  of  that ;  yet  still  property  has  enhanced  in 
value  in  that  vicinity,  and  has  been  doing  so  all  thro-ugh  the  last 
summer  through  the  panic." — (See  pages  238,  239.) 

To  Edward  A.  Lawrence  the  following  question  was  propounded : 

*' How  much  doyou  consider  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  worth?" 

^'Answer.  Fromfifteenhundred  to  two  thousand  dollars,  because  it  is 
located  so  elegantly.  Wissmann  laid  it  out  in  building  lots,  and  sold 
a  lot  to  Mr.  Turner  at  the  rate  of  §3,000  an  acre.  I  think  its  locality 
and  position  make  it  a  great  deal  more  valuable.  It  is  rather  abrupt 
on  the  Sound,  but  rises  beautifully  and  in  a  mound." — (See  page  231.) 

Hon.  John  A.  Searing,  member  of  Congress  from  the  district  in 
which  Willett's  Point  is  situated,  deposed  as  follows  : 

^'  Question.  Take  the  whole  of  this  land  at  Willett's  Point  together, 
front,  back,  and  side  land,  what  do  you  estimate  the  one  hundred 
and  ten  acres  worth  ? 

''  Answer.  From  the  way  property  has  been  selling  in  that  neigh- 
borhood, I  should  say  it  was  worth  near  $2,000  an  acre. 

''  Question.  If  you  were  a  man  of  means,  and  desired  to  buy  the 
property,  what  would  you  have  paid  for  it  ? 

*'  Answer.  If  I  took  a  fancy  to  the  property,  I  would  have  been 
willing  to  have  paid  almost  any  price  for  it. 

^'  Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  Would  you  have  given  $2,000  an 
acre  for  it  ? 

^'  Answer.  Yery  likely  ;  probably  more. 

^^  Question.  If  you  had  been  the  owner  of  the  property,  and  knew 
that  an  act  had  passed  for  the  purchase  of  it,  what  would  you  have 
expected  to  get  from  the  government  for  it  ? 

"  Answer.  A  pretty  large  sum.  I  would  have  got  more  than  they 
did,  if  I  could  have  possibly  done  it. 

^*  Question.  With  a  knowledge  that  the  appropriation  for  the  pur- 
pose was  $150,000  would  you  have  expected  to  be  paid  $200,000,  for  it? 

*'  Answer.  If  I  thought  the  government  wanted  it,  and  must  have 
the  property,  and  could  not  do  without  it,  if  I  had  paid  only  $15  for 
it,  I  would  have  asked  $250,000,  or  as  much  more  as  I  could  have 
got." 

The  foregoing  is  but  a  portion  of  the  oral  testimony,  going  to  show 
that  the  government  did  not  pay  more  than  a  fair  price  for  the  Willett's 
Point  property.     It  would  seem  to  be  all-sufficient  for  its  end. 

H.  Rep.  Com.  549 3 


34  WILKINS'    OR  WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

But  there  is  yet  another  criterion  and  test  of  value  which,  perhaps, 
is  still  more  convincing  than  mere  individual  opinion— the  compara- 
tive price  paid  by  the  government  in  other  cases  for  military  sites  than 
in  the  present  instance  of  Willett's  Point. 

In  the  New  Bedford  purchase — a  case  settled  by  arbitration — al- 
ready referred  to,  the  price  paid  was  $1,300  per  acre,  which,  consider- 
ing the  comparative  location  of  the  New  Bedford  purchase  and  Wil- 
lett's Point,  is  more,  in  proportion,  than  was  paid  for  Willett's  Point. 

In  the  Fort  Tompkin's  addition,  purchased  the  last  year,  the  price 
paid  for  17  acres  was  $42,500,  a  little  more  than  $2,500  per  acre; 
while  the  price  paid  for  Willett's  Point  was  about  $1,500  per  acre, 
including  the  water  front,  and  yet  Willett's  Point  and  Fort  Tomp- 
kins are  similarly  situated  in  reference  to  New  York. 

It  would  be  entirely  pertinent  to  ask,  if  it  was  not  exorbitant  in  the 
government  to  give  $2,500  per  acre  for  the  land  at  Fort  Tompkins, 
how  can  it  be  exorbitant  to  give  $1,500  per  acre  for  Willett's  Point,  in 
the  same  vicinity? — (See  Captain  H.  G.  Wright's  testimony,  pp.  225, 
226,  227.) 

And  on  the  14th  of  August,  1854,  a  lot  of  land  of  5]  acres  was  pur- 
chased, for  fortification  purposes,  of  Peter  Jacobson,  for  $12,000,  or 
more  than  $2,300  per  acre,  which  was  $800  per  acre  more  than  was 
paid  for  Willett's  Point.— (See  Appendix  No.  17,  p.  289  ) 

Such  is  the  actual  evidence  as  to  the  value  of  the  Willett's  Point 
property.  It  is  clear,  conclusive,  overwhelming  to  the  point,  that 
the  government  paid  no  more  than  a  fair  price  for  it. 

But  passing  by  all  parol  proof,  there  is  one  general  consideration 
which  stamps  entire  reasonableness  on  the  purchase.  The  very 
locality  of  the  land  settles  the  question.  Situated  within  a  few 
miles  of  the  empire  city  of  the  empire  State  of  the  Union,  whose 
commerce  is  world-wide^,  exacting  rich  tribute  from  every  State  of  the 
Union,  and  from  every  country  of  the  civilized  globe,  and  building 
up  almost  semi-annually  magnificent  fortunes  for  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  her  citizens,  and  laying  the  foundation  for  the  occupation 
of  every  beautiful  spot  with  the  princely  villa  and  palatial  edifice, 
such  a  location  must  needs  be  of  surpassing  value,  and  one  hundred 
acres  of  land  thus  located,  with  splendid  water  views  and  beautiful 
scenery,  are  worth  as  much  money  (as  the  Hon.  Mr.  Searing  said)  as 
mortal  means  can  command. 

The  undersigned  do  not  hesitate  to  express  their  decided  con- 
viction that  the  price  paid  for  the  Willett's  Point  property  was  by  no 
means  exoibitant,  if  the  testimony  of  intelligent  and  creditable  wit- 
nesses is  to  be  relied  upon;  and  they  further  believe  that,  from  the  rapid 
and  constant  advance  in  real  estate  values  in  the  vicinity  of  the  great 
commercial  metropolis  of  the  Union,  a  year's  or  even  a  half  year's  de- 
lay in  the  purchase  would  have  added  largely  to  the  cost,  perhaps  doubled 
the  price  to  the  government,  and  before  the  last  payment.  They  are 
confident  that  it  was  sound  policy  in  the  Secretary  of  War  to  make 
the  purchase  at  once;  and  that  he  has  saved  money  to  the  government  by 
doing  so. 

IV.  As  to  the  last  charge,  which  the  course  of  interrogation  seems 
to  aim  to  fix  upon  the  Secretary  of  War,  to  wit,  that  he  was  connected 


VILKINS^   OR  WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  35 

with  a  combination  to  effect  a  sale  of  the  Willett's  Point  property  for 
some  end  of  personal  interest,  the  undersigned  have  hut  to  say  that, 
in  the  absence  of  any  particle  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  they  cannot 
consent  to  do  that  distinguished  gentleman  the  injustice  to  enter  upon 
any  detailed  consideration  of  it.  His  own  good  name  and  his  higti 
position  in  the  country  should  be,  and  is,  a  full  refutation  of  all  such 
calumny  ;  and  so  all  but  the  prejudiced  and  the  embittered  partisan 
will  say. 

They  have  only  to  add,  on  this  point,  that  after  a  most  extraordi- 
nary course  of  interrogation,  in  which  all  the  rules  of  legal  evidence 
were  set  at  naught,  and  the  most  palpable  irrelevancy  tolerated,  there 
is  not  a  solitary  circumstance,  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  evidence,  to  affect 
the  personal  honor  or  official  integrity  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

An  effort  was  made,  it  is  true,  by  an  inquisitorial  prying  into  pri- 
vate transactions,  to  connect  certain  bank  accommodations  had  by  the 
agent  of  Governor  Floyd  with  a  speculation  in  the  Willett's  Point 
purchase,  but  the  idea  was  utterly  dissipated  by  the  unqualifiei  testi- 
mony of  respectable  witnesses  that  those  accommodations  commenced 
months  before  Governor  Floyd  became  a  member  of  the  administra- 
tion— before  President  Buchanan  was  elected,  and  had  reference  ex- 
clusively to  his  own  private  interests  and  business  operations. 

Indeed,  after  all  the  tedious  investigation  made  by  the  committee, 
the  undersigned,  as  a  portion  of  that  committee,  have  seen  nothing  to 
criminate  any  one  against  whom  it  seemed  to  have  been  aimed.  To 
one  party,  at  least,  whom  there  seemed  a  disposition  to  implicate,  the 
Hon.  Augustus  Schell,  the  chairman  of  the  committee  himself  took 
occasion  to  exonerate  from  all  improper  connexion  with  the  Willett's 
Point  purchase.  On  page  117  of  the  manuscript  evidence  he  does 
justice  to  Mr.  Schell  in  the  following  emphatic  language : 

*'The  Chairman.  Mr.  Horace  F.  Clark  asked  me  about  his  (Mr. 
Augustus  Schell's  evidence,)  and  I  told  him,  as  near  as  I  recollect, 
everything  he  swore  to.  I  know  his  examination  was  a  satisfactory 
one,  and  proved  to  me  that  he  had  notiiing  to  do  with  the  combination 
which  effected  the  sale  of  this  'property  to  the  government." 

What  was  thus  said,  with  entire  truth,  of  Mr.  Schell,  might,  so  far 
as  the  proofs  are  concerned,  be  as  well  said  of  all  whose  official  conduct 
came  under  review  in  the  investigation. 

The  undersigned  do  not  feel  that  they  will  have  dons  their  full 
public  duty  should  they  close  this  report  without  entering  their 
solemn  protest  and  earnest  warning  against  what  they  regard  a  great 
public  evil — the  frequency  of  these  congressional  investiga.tions. 

The  history  of  the  present  session  of  Congress  satisfies,  them  that  to 
raise  an  investigating  committee  has  become  a  matter  of  far  too  great 
facility,  while  the  progress  and  result  of  this  particular  investigation 
have  fastened  upon  their  minds  the  conviction,  that  the  facility  com- 
plained of  not  only  may  be,  but  has  been,  made  an  instrumentality 
for  the  commission,  not  of  simple  injustice  merely,  but  of  grievous 
injury  and  perhaps  irreparable  wrong.  It  opens  to  malevolence  the 
widest  scope  for  the  gratification  of  its  vindictive  promptings,  and 
makes  for  personal  and  party  malignity  the  opportunity  to  scatter  sus- 
picion, and  to  wreak  its  dark  vengeance  upon  its  marked-out  victims. 


36  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'^   POlNf  INV^STIGAtlOS'. 

In  this  instance  no  specific  charge  was  brought  forward  as  a  basis 
for  the  investigation.  No  one  could  be  found  who  would  take  upon 
himself  the  grave  responsibility  of  endorsing  a  definite  accusation 
against  the  Secretary  of  War.  But  it  seems  to  have  been  'presumed 
that  there  was  something  wrong  in  the  afiair  of  the  Willett's  Point 
purchase,  or,  may  be,  it  was  hoped  that  something  wrong  would  turn 
up  in  the  course  of  the  investigation,  should  one  be  had  ;  and  so  a 
general  inquiry  was  suggested  into  all  the  matters  and  things  relating 
to  the  transaction. 

The  investigation  commences.  The  accused  party  is  not  present  to 
confront  and  cross-examine  the  witnesses,  because  there  is  no  party 
actually  accused,  or  arraigned  ;  and  so  in  order  to  manufacture  ma- 
terials for  the  investigation^  and  save  the  proceeding  from  the  appear- 
ance of  a  bald  farce,  a  course  of  random  and  totally  irrevelent  interro- 
gation becomes  indispensable,  and  is  allowed. 

The  result  is  an  outrage  upon  all  justice  and  right.  While  there  is 
no  named  allegation  against  Governor  Floyd,  and  himself  all  the 
while  absent ;  his  official  conduct,  and  even  his  private  aifairs  having 
no  sort  of  connexion  with  his  public  relations,  were  made  the 
subject  of  a  prying  scrutiny  for  months  together  ;  he  is  placed 
before  the  country  in  the  attitude  of  a  public  functionary  arraigned 
for  malfeasance,  when,  in  the  recess  of  the  committee  room,  it  is  known 
that  no  one  has  dared  to  specify  a  charge  ;  suspicion  is  aroused  by  the 
mere  fact  of  the  investigation  ;  defamation  is  set  to  work  ;  falsehood 
does  its  task  ;  and  yet,  after  a  most  protracted  and  searching,  and 
even  inquisitorial  investigation,  not  one  single  circumstance  is  devel- 
oped to  impeach,  in  the  slightest  degree,  his  honor  as  a  man,  or  his 
uprightness  as  a  public  agent. 

The  justice  of  this  great  nation  revolts  at  such  a  course  of  proceed- 
ure,  and  Congress  owes  it  to  the  country  and  the  character  of  the  na- 
tion at  once  to  apply  the  corrective,  by  refusing  any  committee  of 
investigation  unless  there  be  a  specific,  tangible  charge,  and  a  re- 
sponsible accuser.  Otherwise,  Congress  will  but  lend  its  high  authority 
to  the  perpetration  of  injustice  and  wrong  ;  calumny  will  have  unre- 
stricted scope,  and  no  man's  reputation  will  be  safe. 

The  undersigned  submit  the  following  resolutions  : 

Hesolved,  That  the  evidence  taken  before  the  committee  does  not  in 
any  degree  warrant  the  slightest  imputation  upon  the  official  or  per- 
sonal integrity  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Resolved,  That  the  evidence  does  not  warrant  the  imputation  that 
Augustus  Schell  was  guilty  of  any  official  or  moral  delinquency  in 
connexion  with  the  purchase  of  the  property  at  Willett's  Point. 

Resolved,  Tliat  tlie  committee  be  discharged  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  subject. 

G.  W.  HOPKINS, 
THOMAS  13.  FLORENCE. 


WILKINS^    OR   WILLETT's   POINT   INYESTIGiTION.  37 


MR.  WOOD'S  VIEWS  ON  THE  WILLETT'S  POINT 
INVESTIGATION. 

The  undersigned^  one  0/  the  members  of  the  Special  Committee  appointed 
hy  the  House  of  Representatives  to  investigate  the  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  sale  and  purchase  by  government  of  a  certain  plot  or 
parcel  of  land  on  Long  Island,  in  the  State  of  Neio  York,  commonly 
known  as  Wilkins'  Point,  being  unable  to  agree  laifh  the  other  members 
of  the  committee,  respectfully  asks  leave  to  present  his  views  to  the 
House, 

From  the  testimony  adduced  before  the  committee  by  various  wit- 
nesses, the  following  facts  were  elicited : 

It  appears  that  for  more  than  thirty  years  past  the  necessity  of 
erectinoj  another  fort  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort  Schuyler,  on  the  opposite 
side  of  Long  Island  Sound,  has  been  a  matter  of  consideration  with  the 
government,  and  general  opinion  has  been  directed  to  Willett's  Neck, 
or  Wilkins'  Point  (both  names  for  the  same  parcel  of  land  to  the  in- 
vestigation of  the  sale  and  purchase  of  which  the  attention  of  your 
committee  has  been  directed)  as  the  most  available  point  for  this  pur- 
pose. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  third  session  of  the  last  Congress  the  sum 
of  $150,000  was  appropriated  for  the  purpose  of  a  location  for  such  a 
fort,  without  specifically  naming  any  particular  place,  as  there  were 
two  or  three  points  in  the  vicinity,  the  relative  merits  of  which  had 
been  under  consideration.  After  a  careful  examination  of  these 
several  points,  and  mature  deliberation  as  to  their  respective  merits, 
there  could  be  no  question  as  to  the  superiority,  in  all  respects,  of 
Wilkins'  Point  for  the  purpose  intended. 

This  property,  it  appears,  was  in  the  possession  of  one  Wissmann, 
who,  knowing  that  the  government  had  an  eye  toward  it  for  fortifica- 
tion purposes,  and  being  assured  by  various  facts  and  circumstances 
within  his  knowledge  that  it  was  the  most  suitable  location  in  the 
neighborhood,  naturally  placed  upon  it  a  higher  value  than  perhaps 
its  intrinsic  merits  would  entitle  it  to  for  any  other  purpose.  But 
even  this,  judging  from  the  testimony,  is  a  matter  of  doubt  with  the 
undersigned,  inasmuch  as  the  evidence — and  such  evidence  as  cannot 
for  a  moment  be  called  in  question — distinctly  shows  that  property  in 
this  vicinity  is,  in  some  instances,  held  at  a  much  higher  rate  of  value 
than  was  paid  for  Wilkins'  Point ;  and  there  is  no  reliable  evidence 
in  opposition  to  this  tending  to  prove  that  in  any  instance  could  pro- 
perty of  the  kind  at  all  suitable  for  such  a  purpose  be  obtained  in  the 
neighborhood  at  a  rate  materially  less. 

It  further  appears,  from  correspondence  produced  in  evidence,  that 
after  the  appropriation  of  $150,000  was  made,  Wissmann,  the  then 
owner  of  the  property,  offered  to  dispose  of  it  to  the  government  for 
$1,000  an  acre,  "  an  actual  and  accurate  survey  being  made,  and,  in 
addition,  to  receive  $15,000  for  his  improvements."     This  statement 


38  WILKINfe'    OK   WILLETt's   POINT   INVESTIGATIOIir. 

is  made  by  J.  G.  Barnard,  brevet  major  engineers,  in  a  communica- 
tion to  General  J.  G.  Totten,  bearing  date  March  24,  1857. 

From  the  oral  testimony  of  Mr.  Wissmann  before  the  committee  it 
also  appears  that,  about  a  week  or  ten  days  after  the  passage  of  the 
bill  making  the  appropriation  for  this  purchase,  Mr.  Yan  Nostrand, 
on  behalf  of  Major  Barnard,  called  upon  the  said  Wissmann  to  inquire 
his  price,  and  that  Wissmann  offered  to  sell  the  land  for  |1,000  per 
acre,  or  to  take  $120,000  for  the  whole,  including  his  improvements. 
Van  Nostrand  requested  Wissmann  to  give  him  a  written  memoran- 
dum to  the  effect  that  he  would  take  $100,000  for  the  whole.  Thi? 
proposition  Wissmann  declined.  Van  Nostrand  then  stated  that  Major 
Barnard  would  make  his  report  to  the  bureau  in  Washington,  and 
requested  a  week's  time  in  order  to  obtain  an  answer.  To  this  Wiss- 
mann agreed. 

In  the  meantime,  one  George  Irving,  who  lives  but  a  short  distance 
from  Wissmann,  having  heard  of  the  appropriation,  applied  to  Wiss- 
mann to  ascertain  the  value  he  put  upon  his  land,  and  eventually  made 
him  an  offer  of  $130,000  for  the  land  and  the  improvements.  To  this 
offer  Wissmann  replied,  ^'  I  had  a  contract  with  Mr.  Van  Nostrand, 
who  came  to  see  me  on  the  part  of  Major  Barnard,  who,  he  told  me, 
would  make  his  report  to  Washington,  and  that  I  thought  I  should 
wait  that  report  before  I  came  to  any  agreement  with  him.  I  told 
him  that  in  case  the  government  did  not  buy  it  I  would  sell  it  to  him 
for  that  price  ,  but  that  I  thought,  out  of  politeness,  I  would  wait  to 
hear  from  Major  Barnard." 

At  the  expiration  of  a  week  or  ten  days — the  time  specified  during 
which  Wissmann  expected  to  hear  from  Major  Barnard — it  appears  that 
he  saw  Van  Nostrand,  and  that  the  latter  told  him  that  Major  Barnard 
had  as  yet  no  reply  from  Washington,  and  that  the  government  did 
not  want  the  land  ;  but  that  if  they  should  want  it  they  would  take  it 
under  an  appraisement.  At  this  point  the  negotiations  between  Wiss- 
mann and  the  government  terminated,  and  the  former,  having  given 
Irving  a  written  agreement  to  sell  the  property  to  him  in  case  the 
government  did  not  want  it,  negotiations  between  them  were  forthwith 
set  on  fcot.  Some  written  agreement  was  then  entered  into ;  but, 
after  two  or  three  weeks,  a  further  agreement  was  made  ;  and,  in 
order  to  make  it  of  binding  force,  the  sum  of  $1,000  was  paid  by  Irving 
to  Wissmann.  Thus  it  appears  that  from  four  to  five  weeks  intervened 
between  the  j)assage  of  the  appropriation  and  the  purchase  of  the  land 
by  Irving.  By  this  purchase  it  appears  that  $10,000  were  to  be  paid 
in  May  ;  $35,000  in  July,  and  that  a  mortgage  of  $85,000  was  to  re- 
main upon  the  property.  The  cash  conditions  were  fulfilled,  the 
mortgage  was  given,  and  Irving  came  into  possession. 

In  confirmation  of  Wissmann's  testimony  to  the  effect  that  Van 
Nostrand  had  informed  him  that  the  government  did  not  want  this 
property,  Mr.  Irving  says: 

**The  day  I  went  to  see  Mr.  Wissmann  he  told  me  that  Major 
Barnard  had  been  there  the  day  before  looking  at  the  land,  but  that 
he  had  not  decided  that  he  wanted  it^  and  that  he  had  been  over  to 
Cryder's  Point  that  day,  and  had  given  out  that  he  thought  it  would 
suit  better  than  Wissmann's." 


WILKINS'    OR  WILLETT's   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  39 

Irving  having  now  "become  the  owner  of  the  property,  he  wrote  to 
the  Secretary  of  War  making  an  offer  of  sale,  and  fixing  the  price  at 
$200,000. 

Hitherto  it  appears  to  have  heen  the  practice  of  the  government  to 
leave  negotiations  for  purchases  of  this  nature  in  charge  of  the  Engi- 
neer Bureau,  ^^ subject,"  as  General  Totten  says,  ^^to  the  approval  of 
the  Secretary  of  War  ;"  but  for  reasons  which  were  no  doubt  satisfac- 
tory to  the  Secretary,  it  seems  that,  in  this  case,  a  change  was  made  in 
this  respect,  and  he  at  once  transferred  the  matter  from  the  control  of 
the  engineer  department,  and  took  charge  of  it  himself  as  the  head  of 
the  War  Department.  Secretary  Floyd,  in  his  examination  before 
the  committee,  says : 

^'  There  was  a  great  deal  of  writing  between  the  engineer  in  charge 
and  the  engineer-in-chief  upon  the  subject  of  this  property,  which  I 
was  not  aware  of  until  I  got  the  $200,000  proposition.  This  price 
struck  me  as  inordinate,  and  I  said  that  I  could  not  think  of  entering 
into  a  transaction  of  the  sort,  but  that  I  would  go  and  consult  about 
it.  I  took  the  papers  to  the  cabinet,  and  we  talked  the  whole  thing 
over  fully.  We  read  the  papers,  such  as  were  then  before  me,  from 
the  engineer's  department,  and  it  was  very  obvious,  in  the  course  of 
a  few  days,  that,  immediately  upon  the  appropriation  for  the  purchase 
of  the  property,  speculators  had  got  to  work  and  possessed  themselves 
of  it,  and  it  was  a  struggle,  as  it  seemed  to  me_,  between  them  and 
our  engineers  there  who  should  get  hold  of  the  property.  But,  at  all 
events,  it  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  third  parties,  and  the  question 
presented  to  us  was  as  to  the  price  for  which  the  property  could  be 
purchased." 

Again,  the  Secretary  of  War,  speaking  of  the  transaction,  says  : 
^^  It  was  carried  on  by  the  engineer  department  without  any  hioioledge 
of  mine  until  it  became  necessary  that  I  should  be  consulted  about  it." 
The  Secretary  further  says :  "The  first  incident  in  the  transaction 
which  attracted  my  special  attention  was  a  formal  proposition  offering 
to  sell  this  property  to  the  United  States  government  for  $200,000 
upon  specific  terms." 

On  the  other  hand.  General  Totten  says,  before  the  committee,  "  I 
kept  the  Secretary  of  War  informed  from  time  to  time  of  the  subject, 
by  communicating  to  him  the  letters  of  Major  Barnard  ;"  and,  further. 
General  Totten  states  that  the  Secretary  of  War  was  cognizant  of  the 
fact,  that  Major  Barnard  supposed,  for  there  was  no  certainty  in  the 
case,  that  the  property  could  be  obtained  for  $100,000.  Indeed,  General 
Totten,  in  his  testimony,  appears  to  convey  the  idea  throughout,  that 
the  Secretary  of  War  was  fully  conversant  with  all  the  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances, and  proposals  in  the  case  from  the  beginning.  Whether 
there  is  or  is  not  a  discrepancy  between  the  statements  of  the  Secretary 
of  War  and  those  of  General  Totten,  may  be  a  matter  of  grave  con- 
sideration ;  but  it  is  worthy  of  remark  here,  that  a  copy  of  a  letter 
written  by  General  Totten  to  Major  Barnard,  dated  "Engineer  Depart- 
ment, Washington,  March  26,  1857,"  contains  the  following  remark- 
able passage : 

"  I  have  no  idea  that  the  Secretary  of  War  will  authorize  an  offer 
to  Mr.  Wissmann  of  the  sum  you  mentioned  for  his  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point,  and  therefore  I  have  not  submitted  your  proposition  to  him," 


40  WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION, 

It  is  not  for  the  undersigned  to  attempt  to  reconcile  this  avowal 
made  by  General  Totten  on  the  26th  of  March,  1857,  with  his  state- 
ments made  before  the  committee;  but  it  certainly  goes  strongly  to 
corroborate  the  assertion  of  the  Secretary  of  War  that  he  knew  nothing 
of  these  transactions  until  they  had  progressed  so  far  that  it  became 
necessary  he  should  be  consulted.  This  letter  of  General  Totten's  is 
dated  the  26th  of  March,  and  it  is  represented  that  the  sale  was  made 
from  Wissmann  to  Irving  on  the  following  day,  so  that  it  must  be  ob- 
vious the  Secretary  not  only  had  no  knowledge  of  the  price  at  which 
the  purchase  could  then  have  been  made,  but  that  he,  consequently, 
could  not  make  it  for  want  of  that  knowledge,  and  ought  not,  there- 
fore, to  be  held  responsible  for  the  delinquencies  of  his  subordinates. 

Thus  far  the  state  of  the  case  seems  to  be  very  plain,  and  entirely 
divested  of  anything  like  intricacy.  Here  is  a  piece  of  property  which, 
at  the  time  the  appropriation  was  made,  and  for  some  two  or  three 
weeks  afterwards,  could  have  been  purchased  for  $120,000,  but  it  was 
not  then  ^purchased.  Other  parties,  knowing  the  requirements  of  the 
government,  and  the  peculiar  adaptation  of  this  site  above  all  others, 
step  in  between  the  negotiating  parties,  and,  in  consequence  of  the 
delay  In  completing  the  negotiations,  or,  rather,  in  consequence  of 
what  may  be  characterized  as  a  species  of  seeming  duplicity,  at  least, 
on  the  part  of  some  of  the  officers  of  the  engineer  department  of  the 
government,  the  advantage  of  the  first  offer  is  lost  to  the  United  States, 
and  a  demand  is  made  for  a  sum  nearly  double  the  amount  of  that  for 
which  the  property  was  at  first  offered. 

Accordingly,  we  find  that  in  the  month  of  April,  after  the  matter 
had  been  discussed  on  several  occasions  before  the  cabinet,  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  wrote  to  Mr.  Augustus  Schell,  of  New  York,  in  which 
letter  the  Secretary  says  : 

^'This  purchase  has  been  under  discussion  in  the  cabinet  on  several 
occasions,  and  the  opinion  seems  to  prevail  (which  is  ray  opinion  also) 
that  the  price  asked  for  the  land  ($200,000)  is  exorbitant.  1  am 
aware  that  lands  are  high  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  proposed  fort, 
and  I  am  also  aware  that  the  government  cannot  possibly  purchase 

land  at  less  than  its  full  market  value." 

******** 

^^  The  object  of  this  communication  is  to  request  that  you  will  pro- 
ceed at  once  to  ascertain,  as  far  as  practicable,  and  by  such  means  as 
you  can  fully  rely  upon,  the  fair  value  of  this  land.  I  desire  you  to 
communicate  with  Mr.  Isaac  Fowler,  and  get  his  estimate  of  its  value 

likewise." 

*  ******* 

*'  My  object,  you  will  perceive  at  once,  is  to  procure  such  information 
as  will  enable  the  government  to  pay  a  fair  price  for  the  property, 
and  to  ])rotect  it  against  extortion.  I  enjoin  it  upon  you,  therefore, 
to  proceed  with  that  sort  of  caution  and  secrecy  which  will  enable 
you  to  avoid  being  imj)osed  upon  by  any  combination." 

Some  ten  days  afterwards  Messrs.  Schell  and  Fowler  transmitted  to 
the  War  Department  the  following  reply  to  the  Secretary's  letter  : 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT's   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  41 

''  New  York,  April  24,  1857. 

^^  Sir  :  In  obedience  to  your  request,  as  contained  in  your  letter  of 
the  13th  April  instant,  we  have  made  inquiries  as  to  the  value  of  the 
property  known  as  Willett's  Point,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

^'  The  property  is  situate  on  the  East  river,  at  a  convenient  distance 
from  New  York,  being  one  hour  by  boat  or  railroad,  and  is  decidedly 
the  most  eligible  and  desirable  position  for  the  erection  of  summer 
residences,  for  which  purpose  the  property  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
has  been  used  by  many  of  the  leading  and  wealthy  merchants  ;  and 
the  land  fronting  on  the  water  in  that  vicinity  is  held  by  the  owners 
at  from  $1,000  to  $3,000  per  acre. 

^'  We  have  made  inquiries  of  persons  living  in  the  vicinity,  and 
have  also  procured  a  statement  from  several  auctioneers  in  our  city, 
who  are  acquainted  with  this  property,  and  all  concur  in  estimating 
it  to  be  of  great  value.  A  certificate,  signed  by  some  of  the  persons 
inquired  of,  is  herewith  transmitted. 

^^  We  also  transmit  a  letter  from  Mr.  Henry  Grinnell,  who  owns  a 
point  of  land  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Willett's  Point,  which  he 
values  at  $3,000,  and  which,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Mickle,  (whose 
letter  we  also  send,)  also  a  land  owner  in  the  neighborhood,  is  not  of 
greater  value  than  that  in  question. 

^'  An  additional  value  is  given  to  this  land  from  a  recent  act  of  the 
legislature,  said  to  have  been  passed,  giving  the  owners  the  right  to 
land  under  water  to  the  distance  of  four  hundred  feet  from  low  water 
mark. 

**  Relying  upon  the  statement  made  in  answer  to  our  inquiries,  and 
also  from  a  personal  inspection  of  the  property,  we  think  that,  if  the 
quantity  of  land  is  as  represented,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars  for  the  same  cannot  be  considered  an  exorbitant  price. 

**  With  great  respect,  we  remain  your  obedient  servants, 

^'AUGUSTUS  SCHELL, 
^'ISAAC  V.  FOWLER. 

^^Hon.  John  B.  Floyd, 

^^  Secretary  of  War.'' 

The  first  favorable  opportunity  having  been  allowed  to  pass  by 
without  action  on  the  part  of  those  into  whose  hands  such  matters 
were  ordinarily  entrusted,  there  remained  but  one  alternative — either 
to  meet  the  demand  of  the  intermediate  purchaser,  or  to  delay  the 
purchase  for  an  indefinite  period,  thereby  rendering  it  probable  that 
a  still  larger  amount  would  be  demanded  for  the  property.  The 
former  course  was  decided  upon  and  adopted  ;  and  an  agreement  was 
entered  into  by  the  War  Department  with  Irving,  the  then  owner,  to 
pay  him  the  sum  of  $200,000  on  his  making  a  good  title  to  the  United 
States.  The  title  was  produced ;  was  examined  by  the  proper  officer — 
the  Attorney  Greneral ;  was  pronounced  to  be  good,  and  $115,000  of 
the  money  was  paid. 

Such  is  a  succinct  statement  of  facts  as  they  were  elicited  before  the 
committee.  A  vast  mass  of  testimony  was  introduced  which  the  un- 
dersigned considers  as  being  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  object  of  the 


42  WILKINS'    OE   WILLETT'S   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

inquiries  demanded  of  the  committee  by  the  House,  and,  in  some  in- 
stances, wholly  at  variance  both  with  the  objects  of  the  investigation 
and  the  personal  rights  of  the  witnesses.  This  evidence  being  irrele- 
vant, and  chiefly  tending  to  show  the  modus  operandi  by  which  the 
price  of  the  property  was  raised  from  $120,000  to  $200,000  by  parties 
wholly  unconnected  with  the  government,  the  undersigned  does  not 
deem  it  his  duty  to  trouble  the  House  with  any  review  of  the  same. 
It  has  been  printed,  and  each  gentleman,  if  he  chooses  to  wade  through 
this  mass  of  irrelevant  matter,  can  do  so  for  himself. 

Having  now,  as  the  undersigned  believes,  fairly  and  fully  sifted  the 
wheat  from  the  chaff;  having  set  forth  all  the  leading  facts  connected 
with  this  transaction  as  they  were  developed  in  the  testimony  taken 
before  the  committee,  we  might  be  content,  in  lawyers'  phrase,  to 
^'  rest  the  case  here,"  on  the  ground  that  the  terms  of  the  resolution 
of  the  House  by  which  this  committee  was  raised  and  its  duties  as- 
signed have  been  complied  with.  But  there  is  still  another  considera- 
tion, and  that  is  the  ulterior  object  which  the  House  had  in  view  in 
eliciting  these  facts.  What  was  that  object?  It  was  the  ascertain- 
ment of  a  further  fact,  namely  :  whether  or  not  there  had  been  any 
malfeasance  on  the  part  of  certain  high  government  officials  in  the 
negotiations  for  and  the  conclusion  of  this  sale  and  purchase.  Scarcely 
had  the  purchase  been  made  when  the  busy  tongue  of  Eumor  was  at 
work,  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  (Mr.  Floyd^)  and  the  collector  of  the 
port  of  New  York,  Mr.  Augustus  Schell,  were  openly  charged  with 
collusion  in  connexion  with  other  parties,  in  defrauding  the  govern- 
ment out  of  a  large  sum  of  money.  Vague  and  indefinite  as  these 
rumors  were,  they  were  taken  up  by  parties  in  high  standing,  and 
were  so  frequently  repeated,  and  their  truthfulness  was  urged  with  so 
much  pertinacity,  that  investigation  seemed  to  be  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  justification  of  the  parties  charged. 

Looking  upon  the  whole  of  this  testimony,  then,  as  the  undersigned 
believes  he  has  done,  with  an  impartial  eye,  he  cannot  avoid  coming  to 
the  following  conclusions : 

First.  So  far  as  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  is  concerned,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence  implicating  him  in  any  way  in  any  design  to  en- 
hance the  price  of  this  property.  All  that  appears  in  regard  to  him 
is  the  performance  of  a  very  simple  duty  enjoined  upon  him  by  the 
Secretary  of  War,  ostensibly  with  the  view  of  protecting  the  govern- 
ment from  extortion.  He  was  requested  by  the  Secretary,  in  company 
with  Mr.  Fowler,  postmaster  of  the  city  of  New  York,  to  examine  the 
premises,  to  make  inquiries  of  the  neighboring  land-holders  as  to  the 
value  of  lands  in  the  neighborhood,  and  to  do  whatover  else  might 
seem  in  his  judgment  necessary  to  be  done  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
true  state  of  the  case,  and  discover  the  fair  value  of  the  property  in 
comparison  with  other  property  in  the  vicinity.  This  duty  Mr.  Schell 
performed  doubtless  in  the  best  manner  in  which  he  was  able.  Not 
depending  exclusively  upon  his  own  judgment,  he  endeavored  to 
fortify  his  opinion  by  obtaining  the  judgment  of  others  whom  he  con- 
sidered better  qualified  than  himself  to  form  an  accurate  estimate  of 
the  value  of  this  property.  Whether  he  exercised  all  the  caution  and 
prudence  that  might  have  been  exercised,  whether  he  pursued  his  in- 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT's   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  43 

quiries  to  the  utmost  extent  to  which  they  might  have  been  pursued,  is 
a  question  upon  which  the  undersigned  will  not  venture  an  opinion  ;  but 
he  is  most  decided  in  his  belief  that  there  is  nothing  whatever  in  the 
whole  of  the  testimony  that  can  at  all  implicate  this  gentleman  in  any 
corrupt  purpose  in  regard  to  the  agency  he  had  in  this  affair  ;  and  the 
undersigned  is  corroborated  in  this  view  by  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee, (Mr.  Haskin.)  who  in  the  course  of  the  examination  of  Mr. 
Edwin  Crosswell  remarked  as  follows  : 

*'The  chairman:  Mr.  Horace  F.  Clarke  asked  me  about  his  (Col- 
lector ScheH's)  evidence,  and  I  told  him,  as  near  as  I  could  recollect, 
everything  he  swore  to.  I  know  the  examination  was  a  satisfactory 
one,  and  proved  to  me  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  combina- 
tion which  effected  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government." — 
(MS.  report  of  testimony,  p.  117.) 

So  far,  therefore,  as  any  insinuation  against  Mr.  Schell,  the  col- 
lector, is  concerned,  the  undersigned  considers  that  the  matter  maybe 
at  once  dismissed. 

Secondly.  In  regard  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  undersigned  is 
equally  clear  as  to  the  absence  of  any  improper  intention  on  his  part. 
Scarcely  had  he  assumed  the  duties  of  his  office  when  a  demand  was 
made  upon  him  to  send  to  New  York  a  large  amount  of  money  for  the 
purchase  of  this  property.  He  knew  nothing  of  the  negotiations 
which  had  been  going  on,  as  we  find,  both  from  his  own  statement 
and  the  letter  of  General  Totten,  of  the  26th  of  March,  to  Major  Bar- 
nard. He  declined  to  act  thus  precipitately,  not  having  consulted  the 
cabinet,  and  being  himself  but  newly  inaugurated  in  his  office.  That 
he  should  have  proceeded  with  caution  in  a  business  of  so  much  im- 
portance is  rather  a  matter  of  commendation  than  of  reproach  ;  and 
the  undersigned  would  be  unwilling  to  perpetrate  the  injustice  of  cast- 
ing censure  upon  a  member  of  the  government,  because  he  did  not  act 
with  precipitation  on  the  representations  of  others,  without  making 
himself  acquainted  with  all  the  facts  of  the  case. 

As  for  any  corruption  on  his  part,  so  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  the 
supposition  is  wholly  unfounded.  It  is  a  matter  for  deprecation  that 
the  Secretary  of  War  should  have  so  far  exceeded  his  power  as  to 
make  a  purchase  involving  the  payment  of  $50,000  over  and  above 
the  amount  api)ropriated  by  Congress.  The  undersigned  cannot  but 
regard  this  as  an  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  Congress  ;  still  he 
is  well  satisfied  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  testimony  which  at  all 
indicates  a  corrupt  motive.  So  far  as  this  indiscretion  is  concerned, 
the  undersigned  cannot  but  regard  it  as  stepping  beyond  the  legitimate 
powers  with  which  the  Secretary  of  War  is  invested,  and  that  it  is  so 
far  deserving  of  censure  as  to  prevent  its  being  made  a  precedent  in 
future.  It  is  no  palliation  to  contend  that  the  price  agreed  to  be  paid 
is  nothing  more  than  the  real  value  of  the  pro})erty,  in  comparison 
with  other  property  of  a  like  kind.  That  is  not  the  question  under 
consideration. 

There  is  much  conflicting  evidence  as  to  the  value  of  the  property, 
although  the  undersigned  believes  that  the  reliable  testimony  in 
this  respect  largely  preponderates  in  favor  of  the  assumption  that 
the  price  paid  is  only  a  fair  and  reasonable  price.     Some  of  the 


44  WILKINS'    OR    WILLETt's   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 

witnesses  swear  that  the  property  was  not  worth  more  than  from 
^ve  to  eight  hundred  dollars  per  acre.  Others  again  swear  that 
it  is  worth  from  §1,500  to  $2,000  per  acre.  We  have  the  evidence 
of  one  man  (Mr.  Frings)  that  he  sold  property  not  far  distant 
from  this  at  .$2,500  and  $3,000  per  acre.— Mr.  Henry  Clrinnell,  a 
man  of  world-wide  reputation  as  a  philanthropist,  and,  of  course,  of 
unimpeachable  integrity,  tells  us  that  he  owns  ten  acres  a  short  dis- 
tance below  this  point,  for  which  he  asks  $30,000,  or  $3,000  per  acre. — 
Hon.  John  A.  Searing,  a  member  of  this  House,  tells  us  that  the 
water  front  of  the  land  at  Wilkins'  Point  is  worth  $2,000  per  acre, 
and  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  water  front ;  that  he  knows  of  land 
at  Great  Neck,  a  good  way  up  the  bay,  which  had  not  been  ploughed 
for  twenty  years,  and  which  sold  at  $1^500  per  acre — and  that  he 
should  say  that  the  whole  of  Wilkins'  Point  property  was  worth  very 
nearly  $2,000  per  acre. — Mr.  Edward  A.  Lawrence,  a  farmer  living 
in  the  neighborhood,  considers  this  property  worth  from  $1,500  to 
$2,000  per  acre,  because  it  is  located  so  elegantly. — Mr.  William 
Weeks^  a  real  estate  broker  at  Oyster  bay,  knows  Wilkins'  Point,  and 
thinks  that  $2,000  per  acre  would  not  be  an  unreasonable  price  ;  and 
Mr.  H.  G.  Wright,  captain  of  engineers,  in  charge,  informs  us  that 
some  time  ago  the  government  paid  $2,500  per  acre  for  some  land 
adjoining  Fort  Tompkins,  situated  in  respect  to  that  fort  as  the  land 
of  Mr.  Day  is  to  Wilkins'  Point,  and  for  which  the  government,  some 
of  these  days,  will  be  called  upon  to  pay  a  similar  price  should  its 
occupancy  by  the  United  States  be  deemed  desirable,  (and  from  the 
report  of  the  engineers  such  is  likely  to  be  the  case,)  unless  the  wiser 
policy  is  now  pursued  of  making  the  purchase  when  it  can  be  had, 
perhaps,  for  a  reasonable  amount. 

All  this,  however,  as  the  undersigned  has  said,  does  not  exonerate 
the  Secretary  of  War  from  the  responsibility  attaching  to  his  having 
overstepped  the  limits  of  his  power  ;  and  while  the  undersigned  ex- 
onerates him,  as  he  has  before  stated,  from  any  corrupt  motive  or 
purpo.se  or  from  any  participation  with  others  in  any  attempt  to  raise 
the  price  of  this  property  on  the  score  of  its  being  rcf^uired  by  the 
government,  he  thinks  he  should  have  adhered  strictly  to  the  terms 
and  limits  of  the  appropriation. 

Finally,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  add  that  the  responsibility  of 
this  transaction  does  not,  and  should  not,  rest  entirely  upon  the  War 
Department  and  the  Secretary  of  War.  We  have  the  evidence  of  the 
Secretary  of  War,  the  Attorney  General,  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  that  this  matter  was  under  consideration  by  the  cabinet  at 
various  times.  It  must  have  been  known  to  each  member  of  the  cabi- 
net how  mucli  Congress  had  appropriated  for  the  commencement  of 
this  fortification,  and  how  much  money  was  asked  for  this  parcel  of 
land  ;  and,  under  these  circumstances,  it  was  certainly  within  the  power 
of  the  President  and  otlier  members  to  have  exercised  a  controlling  in- 
fluence over  the  Secretary  of  War  if  they  had  deemed  th.it  he  was  step- 
ping beyond  his  legitimate  authority.  The  Attorney  General  himself 
tells  us,  in  his  testimony  before  the  committtee,  that,  if  the  question  had 
been  put  to  him,  lie  "  would  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the 
War  Department  nor  any  other  department  of  the  government  is 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETt's   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  45 

authorized  to  expend  more  money  than  is  appropriated  for  a  particu- 
lar purpose.  It  is  useless  to  affect  doubts  upon  the  subject ;  it  is  too 
clear  to  hesitate  upon."  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  statement  and 
opinion,  we  find  the  Attorney  General  passing  upon  the  title  of  this 
property  when  he  could  scarcely  fail  to  have  known  not  only  the 
amount  of  the  purchase  money,  but  also  the  amount  of  the  appropria- 
tion. To  say  that  it  was  none  of  his  business  to  say  ^^yes"  or  "no" 
to  the  purchase,  is  worse  than  an  idle  excuse.  The  Attorney  General 
is  the  law  officer  of  the  government,  whose  special  duty  it  is,  by  the 
joint  resolution  of  1841,  to  examine  and  pass  upon  these  titles;  and  we 
naturally  and  properly  suppose  that  all  questions  within  his  cogni- 
zance, as  a  member  of  the  cabinet,  in  which  the  interests  of  the  gov- 
ernment are  or  may  he  affected,  should  receive  his  careful  attention, 
and  elicit  his  honest  and  impartial  advisement. 

Anotlier  singular  circumstance  in  the  transaction  is  the  exceeding 
looseness  and  indifference  which  seems  to  have  been  manifested  in  re- 
gard to  the  examination  of  the  title.  How  it  is  possible  that  a 
certificate  of  clear  title  could  have  been  given  by  the  Attorney  Gene- 
ral, or  by  Mr.  Gillett,  his  assistant,  when  the  deed  conveying  the 
property  expressly  sets  forth  in  its  body  that  there  was  a  mortgage  of 
$85,000  upon  it,  is  a  mystery  which  passes  all  comprehension  other- 
wise than  on  the  supposition  of  absolute  indifference  and  neglect. 

Having,  as  the  undersigned  believes,  fairly  and  justly  reviewed  this 
whole  matter  in  connexion  with  the  testimony,  and  with  that  alone, 
with  the  view  of  doing  simple  justice  to  all  parties  concerned,  regard- 
less either  of  jjersonal  considerations  or  of  political  bias,  the  under- 
signed submits  the  above  report,  believing  that  he  has  conscientiously 
performed  the  duty  assigned  to  him  as  a  member  of  the  committee 
entrusted  with  this  investigation,  and  he  therefore  ofters  the  following 
resolutions,  in  which  he  asks  the  concurrence  of  this  House. 

JOHN  M.  WOOD. 

Resolved,  That,  after  a  close  and  impartial  scrutiny  of  the  testimony 
offered  before  the  committee  appointed  by  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives to  inquire  into  the  circumstances  attending  the  sale  and  purchase 
of  land  at  Wilkins'  Point,  on  Long  Island,  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
for  the  purpose  of  commencing  a  fortification  at  that  place,  there  is 
nothing  which  tends  to  implicate,  in  the  slightest  degree,  either  the 
Secretary  of  War  or  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  as  having 
acted  corruptly  in  the  said  purchase. 

Resolved^  That  there  are  yet  circumstances  connected  with  the  man- 
ner of  this  transaction  which  indicate  much  carelessness  on  the  part  of 
the  administration,  in  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  government,  and 
a  want  of  due  lore  thought  and  consideration,  which,  if  allowed  to  pass 
without  reprehension,  might  be  adduced  as  dangerous  precedents  in 
the  future  management  of  affairs  of  this  kind. 

^  Resolved,  That  the  committee  be  discharged  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  subject. 


46  WILKINS'    OE   WILLETT's   POINT   INVESTIGATION. 


STATEMENT. 

The  undersigned,  of  the  committee  appointed  to  investigate  "the 
facts  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  Wil- 
lett's  Point,  for  fortification  purposes  in  1857,''  asks  leave  to  state 
the  conclusions  which  he  derives  from  the  evidence  taken  by  the 
committee. 

A  cursory  perusal  of  the  mass  of  testimony,  which  is  herewith  re- 
ported, will  show  that  much  of  it  is  irrelevant  or  immaterial.  It  is 
not  proposed  to  comment  on  the  evidence  in  detail  ;  it  is  in  possession 
of  the  House  and  the  country.  Every  representative  has  the  oppor- 
tunity to  judge  for  himself  of  its  significance  and  value.  The  under- 
signed embodies  his  own  opinions  in  the  resolutions  which  are 
subjoined. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  consequence  of  official  mismanage- 
ment in  some  quarter,  an  excessive  price  was  paid  for  the  land  bought 
by  the  government  at  Willett's  Point.  It  appears  that  there  was 
a  time  when  this  property  could  have  been  purchased  for  about 
$120,000.  This  opportunity  was  not  promptly  and  wisely  improved, 
and  for  some  reason,  unexplained  by  the  testimony,  was  suffered  to  pass 
away.  After  this  period  there  seems  to  have  been  no  time  when  the 
land  at  Willett's  Point  could  be  had  at  a  price  which  could  be  con- 
trolled by  the  government,  and  the  purchase  w^as  finally  made  after 
consultation  with  the  Executive  and  his  counsellors. 

These  seem  to  be  the  prominent  "facts"  connected  with  the  pur- 
chase of  Willett's  Point.  The  investigation  ordered  into  the  "ciV- 
cumstances'^  connected  with  the  ^'purchase  and  sale'^  of  this  property, 
opens  a  range  of  infinite  itlatitude,  unless  the  resolution  under  which 
the  committee  has  acted  is  interpreted  to  mean  the  ascertainment 
whether  the  government  has  done  or  suffered  wrong  in  the  premises. 

The  undersigned  adopts  this  inter])retation,  believing  it  to  express, 
with  accuracy,  the  intention  of  the  House  in  the  passage  of  the  reso- 
lution. By  this  light  he  reviews  the  evidence  and  forms  his  con- 
clusions. 

No  evidence  is  on  record  which  will  inculpate  any  officer  of  gov- 
ernment in  fraud  or  corru[)tion.  A  grave  error  of  imperfect  admin- 
istration api)ears  in  the  omission  to  secure  the  proi)erty  on  more 
favorable  terms,  which  might  have  been  done  prior  to  the  sale  to 
other  parties  in  April,  1857.  A  degree  of  carelessness  is  also  to  be 
noted  in  the  Attorney  General's  office,  in  overlooking  the  mortgage 
on  this  purchase,  whicli   is  reprehensible. 

As  to  the  other  i)arties  in  interest,  the  vendor  or  vendors  of  Wil- 
iett's  Point,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  advantage  of  their  position 
was  improved  to  the  utmost,  and  that  the  result  was  a  most  successful 
speculation.   The  disposition  to  make  the  government  pay  exorbitantly 


WILKINS'    OR   WILLETT's   POINT   INVESTIGATION.  47 

in  all  its  purchases  which  are  based  on  specific  appropriations,  which 
are  necessarily  public,  is  wide  spread,  if  not  universal.  The  evils 
growing  out  of  it  can  only  be  corrected,  if  corrected  at  all,  by  unceas- 
ing vigilance,  and  by  great  financial  ability  in  the  agents  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  spirit  deserves  rebuke,  and  the  practices  which  grow 
out  of  it  ought  to  be  condemned  by  the  voice  of  public  opinion.  All 
gross  abuses,  wherever  discovered,  should  be  stigmatized  in  such  a 
manner  that  they  shall  become  disreputable.  In  these  public  trans- 
actions there  is  scarce  a  chance  of  escape  for  wrong-doers,  and  the 
exposure  which  is  sure  to  follow  will,  in  most  cases,  serve  to  prevent 
future  evil,  even  if  it  cannot  remedy  a  present  wrong. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  undersigned,  the  committee  exhausts  its 
power  in  reporting  the  testimony  in  this  case  to  the  House,  and  the 
opinions  of  its  members  thereon.  No  further  action  can,  therefore,  be 
recommended  beyond  the  record  of  these  proceedings.  The  following 
resolutions  are  accordingly  submitted,  as  embodying  the  views  of  the 
undersigned  of  the  evidence  before  the  committee,  on  the  essential 
points  of  the  case. 

Resolved^  That  tlie  payment  of  a  sum  exceeding  the  appropriation 
made  by  the  act  of  March  3,  1857,  "for  the  commencement  of  a  for- 
tification opposite  Fort  Schuyler/'  for  a  site,  merely,  at  Willett's 
Point,  and  the  assumption  of  a  mortgage  thereon  by  the  United  States, 
was  without  authority  of  law,  and  is  disapproved  by  this  House  as 
an  unsafe  precedent. 

Resolved,  That  the  price  paid  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  for  the 
property  at  Willett's  Point  is  excessive. 

Resolved,  That  the  original  negotiations  for  the  purchase  of  Wil- 
lett's  Point  were  not  conducted  with  sufficient  promptness,  tact,  and 
energy,  on  the  part  of  the  Engineer  Bureau  ;  and  negligence  is  ex- 
hibited on  the  part  of  the  Secretary  of  War  in  delaying  action  to 
secure  the  property  at  a  price  within  the  appropriation  made  by  law. 

Resolved,  That  the  matter  of  the  purchase  of  Willett's  Point,  on 
the  terms  and  conditions  by  which  it  was  effected,  was  submitted  to 
the  President  and  cabinet  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  that  the 
purchase  was  made  with  their  knowledge  and  consent ;  and  that  no 
evidence  of  fraud  or  corruption  in  any  officer  of  government,  in  con- 
nexion with  this  transaction,  has  been  produced  before  your  committee. 

ROBERT  B.  HALL. 


JOURNAL 


OF 


THE   SPECIAL  COMMITTEE 


APPOINTED 


By  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  dth  of  February,  1858, /or  the 
purpose  of  investigating  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  loith  the 
sale  and  purchase  of  land  at  Wilkins'  Point  by  the  government. 


COMMITTEE. 

JoEN  B.  Haskin,  of  New  York. 
GEORaE  W,  Hopkins,  of  Virginia. 
John  M.  Wood,  of  Maine. 
T.  B.  Florence,  of  Pennsylvania. 
R.  B.  Hall,  of  Massachusetts. 


Thursday,  February  25,  1858. 

The  committee  met  in  the  room  of  the  Committee  on  Expenditures 
in  the  Navy  Department.  Present:  Mr  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr. 
Chairman. 

The  following  communication  from  the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives was  read : 

THIRTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS— FIR8T  SESSION. 
CONGRESS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

In  THE  House  of  Representatives,  February  9,  1858. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Haskin, 

Resolved,  That  a  special  committee,  consisticg  of  five  members,  be 
appointed,  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  facts  and  circumstancen 
connected  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  a  tract  of  land  at  Wilkins'  or 
Willett's  Point,  in  the  county  of  Queens  and  State  of  New  York, 
opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  purchased  by  the  government  for  fortification 
purposes  during  the  year  1857,  and  that  said  committee  be,  and  they 
are  hereby,  authorized  to  send  for  persons  and  papers. 

Ordered,  That  John  B.  Haskin,  of  New  York,  George  W.  Hop- 
kins, of  Virginia,  John  M.  Wood,  of  Maine,  T.  B.  Florence,  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  R.  B.  Hall,  of  Massachusetts,  be  appointed  said 
committee. 

Attest:  J.  C.  ALLEN,  Clerk. 


JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  49 

The  Chairman  made  the  following  statement : 

It  was  my  intention,  when  I  introduced  the  resolution  empowering 
this  committee  to  act,  to  have  stated  to  the  House  the  object  I  had  in 
view  in  offering  it ;  but  gentlemen  objected,  and  I  could  not  do  so. 
I  wish  now  to  state  to  the  committee  certain  facts  connected  with  the 
subject  which  we  are  about  to  investigate,  which  are  within  my  own 
personal  knowledge.  In  the  fortification  bill  which  passed  on  the  3d 
of  March,  1857,  I  find  the  following  item  :  "  For  the  commencement 
of  a  fortification  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  $150,000."  During  that 
month,  whilst  here  attending  the  inauguration,  I  called  at  the  War 
Department  to  inquire  about  the  matter,  and  was  referred  to  General 
Totten.  I  told  him  that  I  represented  the  district  in  which  Fort 
Schuyler  was  situated,  and  that  I  felt  an  interest  in  the  new  fortifica- 
tion,, and  desired  to  know  what  was  being  done  with  the  appropria- 
tion. Upon  this  he  inquired  of  me  whether  I  knew  anything  about 
the  value  of  land  over  there  ;  and  I  replied  that  I  did  ;  that  I  was 
very  familiar  with  it,  having  searched  some  titles  of  property  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  being  acquainted  with  the  location.  "Well," 
said  he,  "  what  is  the  land  worth  ?  I  answered,  that  for  the  govern- 
ment it  was  worth  $500  an  acre,  but  for  a  private  individual  it  was  not 
worth  so  much  ;  and  that,  in  August,  1856,  the  whole  tract,  consist- 
ing of  150  acres,  could  have  been  purchased  for  $35,000.  General 
Totten  then  said  that  the  government  could  not  get  it  for  so  low  a 
sum,  and  that  Major  Barnard  had  entered  into  an  agreement  by  which 
the  government  was  to  have  it  for  $100,000.  I  remarked,  on  hearing 
this,  that  I  supposed  some  speculator,  desirous  of  making  money,  had 
stepped  in  between  the  government  and  the  owner  and  obtained  a  con- 
tract to  dispose  of  the  property,  supposing  that  he  could  get  whatever 
he  chose  to  ask  for  it. 

Subsequently  I  learned  from  several  gentlemen  that  this  property  had 
been  purchased  by  the  government  for  $200,000,  of  which  $115,000 
had  been  paid  in  cash,  and  a  mortgage  left  upon  the  property  for  the 
balance,  $85,000.  Being  led  by  this  to  examine  into  the  transactioQy 
I  discovered  that  on  the  15th  of  April,  1857,  the  legislature  of  the 
State  of  New  York  had  passed  an  act  ceding  jurisdiction  to  the  United 
States,  and  for  condemnation  of  such  land  as  it  might  purchase,  which 
act  contained  the  usual  clause.  I  found  also  that  on  the  same  day  an 
agreement  was  entered  into  by  Frederick  Wissmann,  who  had  had 
this  property  in  the  market  a  long  time  for  sale^,  by  which  he  agreed- 
to  sell  the  property  to  a  Mr.  George  Irving  for  $130,000.  In  April.. 
1857,  the  government  concluded  to  purchase  the  property  from  Mn- 
Irving  for  $200,000,  and  that  purchase  was  consummated  in  the  July 
following,  in  the  way  I  have  stated.  $115,000  was  paid  in  July,  lluX 
the  deeds  were  not  recorded  until  the  month  of  November,  1857  ;  all 
the  old  mortgages  being  wiped  off,  and  this  new  mortgage  for  $85,000 
being  left  upon  the  property. 

My  object  now  is  to  show  who  the  parties  are  who  stepped  in  be- 
tween the  original  owner  and  the  government ;  I  believe  they  are  con- 
nected with  this  government,  and  ought  to  have  been  above  entering 
into  this  swindling  operation.     I  understand  there  are  six  or  seven 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549 4 


50  JOURNAL    OF    THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

men  in  it.  I  have  had  my  suspicion  excited  that  the  $85,000  mort- 
gage left  upon  the  property  is  a  boojus  mortgage,  and  this  also  I  wish 
to  ascertain.  In  order  to  do  this,  I  ask  the  consent  of  the  committee 
to  request  the  attendance  of  Hon.  John  B.  Floyd,  Secretary  of  War, 
from  whom  I  wish  to  obtain  the  official  papers  in  the  case,  and  such 
information  in  relation  to  it  as  will  enable  the  qpmmittee  to  pursue 
the  investigation  speedily  and  thoroughly. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chairman, 

Resolved,  That  Hon.  J.  B.  Floyd,  Secretary  of  War^  be  requested 
to  appear  before  the  committee  on  Friday,  February  26,  to  testify  to 
such  facts  as  may  have  come  to  his  knowledge  in  relation  to  the  sale 
and  purchase  of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property ;  and  that  he  be  requested 
to  bring  with  him  such  papers  as  he  may  have  in  the  War  Depart- 
ment concerning  the  purchase  of  the  property. 

On  motion  of  the  Chairman, 

Resolved,  That  Jas.  B.  Sheridan  be  requested  to  act  as  the  steno- 
grapher of  the  committee. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Friday,  Fehruarp  26,  1858. 

"The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present:   All  the  members. 

Hon  J.  B.  Floyd,  Secretary  of  War,  and  Captain  H.  Gr.  Wright, 
of  the  engineer  department,  appeared  before  the  committee  and  were 
examined. 

The  committee  then  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Wednesday,  March  3,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock.  Present,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence, 
Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

J.  F.  Russell  and  C.  F.  Van  Blankensteyn  appeaaed  before  the 
committee  and  were  examined. 

The  following  letter  was  received,  in  relation  to  one  of  the  witnesses 
in  the  case,  by  the  Chairman  : 

New  York,  February  27,  1858. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  feel  the  delicacy  of  addressing  you  in  reference  to  any 
part  of  your  official  duty,  but  I  cannot  refrain  from  the  effort  to  serve 
a  friend  for  whom  I  entertain  a  very  warm  regard. 

Mr,  George  Irving  has  been  for  some  days  in  expectation  of  being 
summoned  to  testify  before  a  committee,  of  which  you  are  chairman, 
in  regard  to  a  transaction  with  tlie  government. 

He  informed  me  on  Thursday  of  this  week  that  his  arrangements 
were  made  to  leave  for  Washington  at  any  moment.  Late  last  even- 
ing I  received  from  him  the  enclosed  note,  and  this  morning  I  went  to 
his  residence,  where  I  found  him  in  deep  affliction.  I  was  informed 
that  the  physicians  give  him  hoi)es  of  his  wife's  recovery,  but  her 
situation  is  highly  critical. 

The   four   physicians   named  by  him  in  the    note,  and  who  have 


JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE.  51 

charge  of  the  case,  are  among  the  most  eminent  in  our  city.     Their 
names  and  standing  will  probably  be  recognized  by  you. 

Perhaps  I  may  be  permitted  to  add  that  Mr.  Irving  is  a  gentleman 
of  the  nicest  sense  of  honor,  and  that  he  regards  it  as  a  privilege  to  be 
allowed  to  give  his  testimony  in  the  case  referred  to.  I  can  better 
make  him  known  to  you  by  saying  that  he  is  a  son  of  the  late  Judge 
John  T.  Irving,  of  this  city,  and  a  nephew  of  Washington  Irving. 

Under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  I  trust  it  will  not  be  an  im- 
proper request  for  me  to  make,  in  Mr.  Irving's  behalf,  that  no  imme- 
diate summons  may  be  issued  to  him,  at  least,  until  the  imminent 
danger  in  which  his  wife  now  lies  may  be  passed. 

I  beg  to  apologize  for  this  liberty,  and  am,  with  high  respect,  your 
obedient  servant, 

P.  M.  WETMOKE. 

Hon.  J.  B.  Haskins. 

Thuksday,  March  4,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present:   Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Charles  A.  Willett  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  ex- 
amined. 

The  Chairman  received  a  second  communication  in  relation  to  Mr. 
Irving  from  Mr.  Wetmore,  as  follows : 

New  York,  March  3,  1858. 
Dear  Sir  :  Having  taken  the  liberty  of  addressing  you  a  few  days 
since  in  reference  to  a  friend  greatly  afflicted,  I  think  it  my  duty  now 
to  add  the  information  that  Mr.  Irving's  wife  died  this  morning. 

I  have  not  seen  him,  and  do  not  know  what  day  is  appointed  for 
the  funeral  ceremonies. 

I  feel  quite  sure  that  your  well  known  kindness  and  good  feeling 
will  indicate  the  proper  time  for  issuing  summons  to  Mr.  Irving,  if  it 
should  be  the  pleasure  of  the  committee  to  take  that  course. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

P.  M.  WETMOKE. 
Hon.  J.  B.  Haskins. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Friday,  March  5,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present  :   Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
Gilbert  Hicks,  A.  J.  Silliman,   and  W.  H.  Wilkins  appeared  be- 
fore the  committee  and  were  examined. 

The  committee  then  adjourned  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Wednesday,  March  10,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  lOJ  o'clock. 

Present :  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
W.  C.  Wetmore  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 
Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 


52  JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 


Thursday,  March  11,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 
Present:  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
Lieut.  Q.  A.  Gillmore  and  Col.  J.  L.  Smith  appeared  before  the 
committee  and  were  examined. 
Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Friday,  March  12,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present :  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and 
Mr.  Chairman. 

Major  J.  G.  Barnard  and  Henry  Day  appeared  before  the  committee 
and  were  examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Saturday,  March  13,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 

Present :  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

J.  McKeon  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 

Adjourned  until  Monday. 

Monday,  March  15,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  lOJ  o'clock. 
Present:  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
William  Turner  and  C.  P.  Loweree  appeared  before  the  committee 
and  were  examined. 

Adjourned  until  Wednesday. 

Wednesday,  March  17,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present :  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

I.  V.  Fowler  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Friday,  March  26,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 

Present:  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and 
Mr.  Chairman. 

T.  B.  Bleecker,  A.  J.  Bleecker,  and  G.  V.  Lott  appeared  before  the 
committee  and  were  examined. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hopkins, 

Itesolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  requested  to  inform  this 
committee  whether  the  government  of  the  United  States  has,  within  the 
last  five  years,  purchased  any  other  land  in  the  harbor  of  New  York 


JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  53 

other  than  that  at  Willett's  or  Wilkins'  Point,  and,  if  so,  what  quan- 
tity, the  price  paid  therefor,  and  for  what  particular  use  such  land 
was  purchased. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chairman, 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  he  requested  to  furnish  this 
committee  with  any  copies,  not  heretofore  furnished,  of  letters,  tele- 
graphic despatches,  and  papers  in  any  way  connected  with  the  sale 
and  purchase  of  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  for  fortification  pur- 
poses, duly  certified  for  the  use  of  this  committee. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  chairman. 

Wednesday,  March  31,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 
Present :  All  the  members. 

Simeon  Draper  and  T.  S.  Draper  appeared  before  the  committee 
and  were  examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Thursday,  April  1,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 

Present:  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

F.  Wissmann  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 

Saturday,  April  3,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  11  o'clock. 
Present :  All  the  members. 
No  witness  appeared. 

The  following  communication  was  received  from  the  Secretary  of 
War,  Hon.  John  B.  Floyd  : 

War  Department, 
Washington ,  April  2,  1858. 

Sir  :  I  have  received  a  letter  from  ''  James  B.  Sheridan,  clerk  of  the 
committee  to  investigate  the  purchase  of  Wilkins'  Point,"  asking  for 
copies  of  all  letters  not  heretofore  furnished,  and  other  papers  con- 
nected with  said  purchase,  and  for  information  relative  to  the  pur- 
chase, within  five  years,  of  any  other  lands  in  the  harbor  of  New 
York  ;  and  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith,  for  the  information 
of  the  committee,  a  report  of  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  Engineer 
Bureau,  which,  with  the  paper  enclosed  therein,  furnishes  the  infor- 
mation desired. 

I  would  respectfully  suggest  that,  hereafter,  any  call  for  infor- 
mation your  committee  may  desire  to  make  upon  this  department  be 
communicated  through  its  chairman  or  one  of  its  members.     The  clerk 


54  JOURNAL   OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 

of  the  committee  not  being  officially  known  to  the  department,  can- 
not with  propriety  be  recognized. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant. 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War, 
The  Chairman  of  Committee 

To  investigate  purchase  of  Wilkins'  Point, 

House  of  Representatives. 

Ordered,  That  all  communications  hereafter  addressed  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  be  addressed  in  the  name  of  the  Chairman. 
The  committee  then  adjourned  until  Monday,  April  5th. 

Monday,  April  5,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present :  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr. 
Wood^  Mr.  Hall^  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

P.  M.  Wetmore  and  Jacob  Cole  appeared  before  the  committee  and 
were  examined. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  Chairman. 
Monday,  April  12,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present :  Mr.  Florence,  Mr. 
Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

General  Joseph  Gr.  Totten,  chief  of  the  Engineer  Bureau,  appeared 
before  the  committee,  and  was  examined. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  chairman. 
Friday,  ^J9n7  23,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present :  Mr.  Florence,  Mr. 
Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Grahams  Policy  appeared  before  the  committee,  and  was  examined. 

The  following  communication  was  received  from  the  clerk  of  the 
House : 

THIRTY-FITTH  CONGRESS— FIRST  SESSION. 
CONGRESS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

In  THE  House  of  Kepresentatives,  April  19,  1858. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Florence, 
Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  facts  and 
circumstances  connected  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  property  at 
Wilkins'  Point,  New  York,  by  the  government  for  fortification  pur- 
poses, in  the  year  1857,  be  authorized  to  employ  a  stenographer  at  the 
usual  compensation. 

Attest :  J.  C.  ALLEN,  Clerk, 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 


JOURNAL   OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE.  55 


Saturday,  April  24,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  11  o'clock.  Present:  Mr.  Florence,  Mr. 
Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairi^ian. 

George  Irving  appeared  before  the  committee,  and  was  examined. 
Adjourned  until  Monday. 

Monday,  April  26,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 

Present :  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall^  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

D.  Van  Nostrand  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Tuesday,  April  27,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 

Present  :   Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

George  Irving  again  appeared  before  the  committee  and  his  exami- 
nation was  concluded.  A.  Schell  also  appeared  before  the  committee 
and  was  examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Wednesday,  April  28,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  11  o'clock. 

Present  :    Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
W.  C.  Wetmore,  having  been  recalled,  appeared  before  the  commit- 
tee and  was  again  examined. 
Adjourned  until  Friday. 

Friday,  April  30,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  11  o'clock. 

Present :   Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Captain  H.  W.  Benham  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was 
examined. 

The  following  communication  was  received  from  Mr.  R.  W.  Latham, 
a  witness  subpoenaed  to  appear  before  the  committee  on  Monday, 
May  3  : 

Washington,  April  28,  1858. 
Sir  :  Just  on  the  eve  of  my  leaving  the  city  for  the  West,  where  I 
expect  to  be  gone  for  about  two  weeks,  I  received  a  summons  to  attend 
your  committee  as  a  witness  on  Monday,  the  3d  of  May,  in  the  case 
of  purchase  and  sale  of  Willett's  Point.  My  business  in  the  West  is 
of  such  a  character  that  I  cannot  neglect  it  ;  and  as  it  can  make  no 
dijBference  with  the  committee,  I  beg  the  favor  of  you  to  postpone  my 
examination  two  weeks  from  Monday,  the  3d  of  May.  I  may  get  back 


56  JOURNAL   OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 

sooner,  but  would  not  like  to  promise  to  do  so.  I  have  no  personal 
acquaintance  with  any  gentleman  on  your  committee,  except  a  very 
slight  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Wood,  to  whom  I  shall  send  a  copy  of 
this  note,  believing  that  no  gentleman  on  your  committee  would  have 
me  to  sacrifice  my  private  interest  and  break  my  engagements,  when 
no  possible  injury  could  result  by  two  weeks'  delay. 

I  would  respectfully  state  that  I  am  at  a  loss  ty  know  what  the 
committee  expect  to  prove  by  me.  I  hold  no  office  whatever  under 
the  government,  and  if  I  was  so  unfortunate  as  to  want  one,  I  could 
not  possibly  get  it  under  this  administration.  If  there  was  nothing 
else  to  prevent  it,  Lecompton  would  be  sufficient.  I  have  no  interest 
whatever  in  the  purchase  or  sale  of  the  property.  I  know  of  nothing 
that  would  reflect  upon  the  honor  or  integrity  of  any  man  in  the  gov- 
ernment in  reference  to  this  or  any  other  transaction  ;  and  while  I 
have  charge  of  Governor  Floyd's  coal  and  salt  mines  in  Kentucky, 
and  act  as  his  agent  in  his  private  affairs  ;  and  while  I  believe  that 
he  has  great  confidence  in  me  as  a  business  man,  yet  I  am  sorry  to 
say  that  with  my  political  views  he  has  no  sympathy ;  and  in  regard  to 
any  government  matter,  I  know  of  no  intelligent  friend  of  his  whose 
influence  with  him  would  not  be  much  greater  than  mine. 

If  any  member  of  your  committee  should  have  been  persuaded  that 
I  could  give  any  information  that  would  reflect  in  any  degree  upon 
the  honor  of  Governor  Floyd,  they  have  been  grossly  deceived,  and  if 
they  knew  him  they  would  not  entertain  such  an  idea  for  a  moment. 
Very  respectfully,  you  obedient  servant, 

R.  W.  LATHAM. 

Hon.  John  B.  Haskin. 

Extract  from  a  letter  dated  Louiza,  Ky.,  April  21,  1858. 

^'  The  colonel  and  myself  have  been  waiting  here  for  you  for  ten 
days  ;  received  yours  saying  you  would  leave  last  Wednesday  ;  boat 
just  arrived,  and  we  are  disappointed. 

^^I  am  now  waiting  your  arrival,  and  can  do  nothing  until  you 
come." 


a 


J.  J.  MILLER." 


To  this  communication  the  following  reply  was  addressed  by  the 
chairman  : 

Washington,  Jpril  30,  1858. 

Sir:  Your  letter  received.  The  near  approach  of  the  close  of  the 
session,  and  the  anxiety  of  the  committee  to  close  their  labors,  renders 
it  impossible  to  grant  your  request  that  your  examination  shall  be 
postponed  for  two  weeks.  Althougli  sorry  to  interfere  with  your 
private  business,  we  are  still  under  tlie  necessity  of  requiring  you  to 
obey  the  summons  served  upon  you  by  the  sergeant-at-arms  for  Mon- 
day next. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

JOHN  B.  HASKIN,  Chairman. 

R.  W.  Latham,  Esq. 


JOUENAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE.  57 

This  reply  to  Mr.  Latham's  letter  was  immediately  taken  to  the 
War  Department  by  the  clerk  of  the  committee,  who  was  informed  by 
Mr.  Drinkard,  the  chief  clerk,  that  Mr.  Latham  had  left  town. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Saturday,  May  1,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 

Present :  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Haskin. 

A.  H.  Mickle  and  R.  Schell  appeared  before  the  committee  and 
were  examined. 

The  committee  having  knowledge  that  Mr.  Latham  had  left  town, 
it  was 

Ordered,  That  the  chairman  present  the  facts  of  the  case  to  the 
House,  and  ask  that  a  warrant  be  issued  for  the  arrest  of  R.  W. 
Latham. 

Adjourned  to  meet  on  Friday,  May  7. 

Friday,  May  7,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present :   Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

J.  D.  Williamson  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 

Adjourned  to  meet  on  Monday  next. 

Monday,  May  10,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present :  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
John  C.  Mather  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 
Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Tuesday,  May  11,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 

Present:  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  Mr.  Florence,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
P.  J.  Joachimsen  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 
Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Wednesday,  May  12,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 
Present :   All  the  members. 

Richard  Schell  again  appeared  before  the  committee,  and  his  ex- 
amination was  concluded. 

Thursday,  May  13,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present:   Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

W.  R.  Drinkard,  chief  clerk  of  the  War  Department,  and  Hon. 
Jeremiah  S.  Black,  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  appeared 
before  the  committee  and  were  examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 


58  JOURNAL    OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 


Friday,  3Iay  14,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 
Present :  Mr.  "Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
E.  H.  Gillett,  late  Assistant  United  States  Attorney  General,  ap- 
peared before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 
Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Saturday,  May  15,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock. 
Present :  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall^  and  Mr.  Chairman. 
The  Chairman  laid  before  the  committee  the  following  communica- 
tion : 

Washington,  May  15,  1858. 

Sir  :  I  arrived  here  yesterday  morning,  and,  not  being  acquainted 
with  the  rules  and  usages  in  such  cases,  I  reported  myself  to  the 
Speaker,  instead  of  the  committee.  I  heard  nothing  in  regard  to  a 
warrant  being  out  for  me  until  I  reached  the  Relay  House,  on  my  way 
here,  to  comply  with  my  promise,  as  staled  in  my  letter  to  you  of 
the  28th  ultimo.  I  now  inform  you  that  I  will,  at  any  time,  appear 
before  your  committee,  and  will  be  obliged  to  you  to  examine  me  to- 
day, if  possible,  as  I  am  anxious  to  get  to  New  York  by  Tuesday  morn- 
ing next,  at  furthest,  and  if  you  can't  examine  me  to-day,  please  don't 
postpone  it  longer  than  Monday. 

I  wish  you  would  do  me  the  justice  to  have  the  proceedings  in  the 
House  stopped  against  me. 

Please  excuse  this  note  in  pencil,  as  I  wish  it  sent  to  you  early  this 
morning,  and  I  have  not  time  to  get  where  I  can  get  ink. 
Your  obedient  servant, 

R.  W.  LATHAM. 

Hon.  J.  B.  Haskin. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Florence, 

Resolved^  That  the  Chairman  be  requested  to  ask  the  discharge  of 
Mr.  R.  W.  Latham  from  the  custody  of  the  sergeant-at-arms,  and 
that  he  be  directed  to  appear  before  the  committee  on  Monday  next,  at 
10  o'clock. 

No  witness  appearing,  the  committee  then  adjourned  until  Monday. 

Monday,  May  17,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present:  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  John  W.  Lawrence  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  ex- 
amined. Mr.  R.  W.  Latham  also  appeared  and  was  partially 
examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 


JOURNAL    OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  59 


Tuesday,  May  18,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock.  Present:  Mr.  Hall  and  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  witness,  R.  W.  Latham. 

After  waiting  some  time  for  a  quorum,  the  clerk  of  the  committee 
was  directed  to  notify  the  members  of  the  committee  to  attend  a  meet- 
ing to-morrow  at  10  o'clock. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Wednesday,  May  19,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock.     Present :  All  the  members. 

Mr.  it.  W.  Latham's  examination  was  concluded.  Mr.  Latham 
read  over  and  submitted  several  written  corrections  to  his  testimony 
given  on  the  17th  of  May,  which  were  ordered  to  be  appended  thereto. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  Wood, 

Resolved,  That  the  Chairman  be  directed  to  ask  the  authority  of  the 
House  for  the  committee,  or  any  two  of  its  members,  to  proceed  to 
New  York,  view  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  purchased  by  the 
government,  and  take  the  testimony  of  witnesses. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow, 

Thursday,  May  20,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present:  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr. 
Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Howell  Cobb,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  appeared  before  the  com- 
mittee and  was  examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Friday,  May  21,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present:  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Flor- 
ence, and  Mr.  Haskin. 

E.  Crosswell  appeared  before  the  committee  and  was  examined. 
Adjourned  to  meet  at  call  of  the  Chairman. 

Tuesday,  May  25,  1858. 

The  Committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.     Present:   Mr.  Chairman. 

Three  witnesses  presented  themselves.  After  waiting  until  the 
hour  for  the  meeting  of  the  House  and  no  quorum  having  appeared, 
the  clerk  was  directed  to  notify  the  absent  members  that  a  meeting 
would  be  held  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock,  and  the  committee  then  ad- 
journed. 

Wednesday,  May  26,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock.     Present  :  All  the  members. 
No  witnesses  having  appeared,  the  committee  adjourned  until  to- 
morrow. 


•60  JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 


Thursday,  May  27,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present :  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr. 
Wood,  and  Mr.  Florence. 

Ed.  A.  Lawrence,,  H.  H.  Hover,  and  Wm.  Weeks,  appeared  before 
the  committee  and  were  examined. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Friday,  May  28,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  half  past  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Present :  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Three  witnesses,  G.  Frings,  John  Cryder,  and  Henry  Grinnell, 
appeared  before  the  committee. 

G.  Frings  was  examined. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chairman,  the  committee  then  adjourned  to  meet 
at  Mr.  Hairs  room,  Willards'  hotel,  at  6  o'clock  p.  m.,  to  examine 
the  two  remaining  witnesses. 

6  o'clock  p.  m. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  at  Mr.  Hall's  room, 
Willards'  hotel. 

Present:  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Cryder  and  Mr.  Grinnell,  the  witnesses,  also  appeared. 

The  Chairman  laid  before  the  committee  the  following  note  : 

House  of  Representatives,  May  28,  1858. 
Sir  :  The  House  is  still  in  session  at  6  o'clock  p.  m.,  and  we  do  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  meet  the  select  committee  without  its  leave. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

G.  W.  HOPKINS. 
THOMAS  B.  FLORENCE. 
Hon.  John  B.  Haskin,  Chairman,  &c. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  reading  of  the  note  Mr.  Hopkins  and  Mr. 
Florence  presented  themselves,  and  stated  that  the  House  was  still  in 
session,  that  business  of  importance  was  being  transacted,  and  that 
their  presence  was  necessary  ;  they  therefore  asked  the  committee  to 
postpone  the  examination  of  the  witnesses  until  the  next  morning, 
when  they  could  be  present. 

The  Chairman  said  that  he  was  anxious  to  close  the  evidence,  and 
that  the  examination  of  the  two  remaining  witnesses  would  not  occupy 
fifteen  minutes.  He  hoped,  as  there  was  a  full  committee  present, 
that  no  objection  would  be  made  to  proceeding. 

Mr.  Hoi)kin8  and  Mr.  Florence  both  objected  to  the  committee  pro- 
ceeding while  tlie  House  was  in  session,  without  its  consent. 

Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same  place  to- 
morrow. 


JOURNAL   OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  61 


Saturday,  3Iay  29,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  at  Mr.  Hall's  room,  Wil- 
lards'  hotel. 

Present:  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and 
Mr.  Chairman. 

John  Cryder  and  Henry  Grinnell  appeared,  and  were  examined. 

James  B.  Sheridan,  clerk  of  the  committee,  made  a  statement  under 
oath. 

Mr.  Chairman  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  testimony  before  the  Wilkins'  Point  investiga- 
ting committee  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  closed;  and  that  the  com- 
mittee now  adjourn  to  meet  at  this  place  on  Monday  next,  May  31, 
1858,  at  9  o'clock  a.  m.,  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  said  testimony 
read,  and  to  report  thereon  with  all  convenient  speed. 

Mr.  Florence  stated  that  he  desired  to  examine  Hon.  John  A.  Sear- 
ing and  Captain  H.  G.  Wright  before  the  testimony  closed. 

Mr.  Chairman  said  that  he  was  willing  to  give  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  an  opportunity  of  examining  the  witnesses  he  named, 
provided  they  were  called  and  examined  that  day.  The  session  was 
rapidly  drawing  to  a  close  and  he  was  fearful,  there  having  already 
been  so  much  delay  in  the  case,  that  Congress  would  adjourn  before 
the  committee  submitted  any  report.  He  would  modify  his  resolution 
so  as  to  provide  for  the  examination  of  these  witnesses  if  the  committee 
would  agree  to  meet  in  one  of  the  ante-rooms  of  the  hall  of  the  House, 
at  3  o'clock  p.  m.,  and  take  their  testimony. 

This  proposition  being  agreed  to,  Mr.  Chairman  so  modified  his 
resolution  as  to  provide  that  upon  the  examination  of  Captain  H.  G. 
Wright  and  Hon.  John  A.  Searing,  at  3  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  testimony 
should  close,  in  which  form  the  resolution  passed. 

Adjourned. 

3  o'clock  p.  m. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  in  the  ante-room  of 
the  hall  adjoining  the  office  of  the  sergeant-at-arms. 

Present:  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Captain  H.  G.  Wright  and  Hon.  John  A.  Searing  appeared  before 
the  committee  and  were  examined,  and  the  testimony  thereupon 
closed. 

Adjourned  until  Monday. 

Monday,  May  31,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  at  Mr.  Hall's  room,  Willards' 
Hotel. 

Present:   Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman  stated  that  his  report  was  prepared  and  he  wished  to 
have  the  sense  of  the  committee  upon  it. 

Mr.  Hall  thought  there  ought  to  be  a  full  committee  present  when 
the  views  of  individual  members  were  expressed  in  relation  to  the 


^2  JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE 

report  to  be  submitted  to  the  House,  and  he  therefore  moved  that  the 
committee  adjourn  until  7^  o'clock  p.  m.,  and  that  the  clerk  notify 
members  that  the  committee  would  take  action  upon  the  report  at 
that  hour. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  adjourned. 

7^  o'clock  p.  m. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  at  Mr.  Hall's  room, 
Willards'  hotel.     Present  :   Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman  again  proposed  to  submit  his  report  and  take  the 
action  of  the  committee  upon  it. 

Mr.  Hall  was  still  of  opinion  that  action  ought  not  to  be  had  upon 
the  report  until  there  was  a  full  attendance  of  the  members  of  the 
committee^,  and  he  moved  that  the  committee  adjourn  until  to-morrow, 
at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  and  that  the  clerk  be  directed  to  notify  the  absent 
members  that  at  that  hour  the  report  of  the  Chairman  would  certainly 
be  read  and  action  had  upon  it. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  adjourned. 

Tuesday,  June  1,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  at  Mr.  Hall's  room,  Willards' 
Hotel. 

Present :  All  the  members. 

The  Chairman  read  his  report,  accompanied  by  the  resolutions. 

On  the  question,  "  Shall  the  report  be  adopted?"  the  vote  was — 

Yeas — Mr.  Chairman. 

Nays — Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  and  Mr.  Hall. 

The  question  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  accompanying  the 
report  was  postponed,  the  remaining  members  of  the  committee 
desiring  to  express  their  views  on  the  case. 

Mr.  Florence  submitted  the  following  letter  from  Augustus  Schell : 

Washington,  May  29,  1858. 

Gentlemen  :  I  have  been  permitted  the  perusal  of  a  communication, 
bearing  date  May  25,  1858,  addressed  by  the  Hon.  John  B.  Plaskin, 
as  Chairman  of  the  House  investigating  committee,  of  which  you  are 
severally  members,  a  copy  of  which  communication  1  take  the  liberty 
to  enclose. 

This  communication  purports  to  have  been  addressed  by  your  com- 
mittee to  the  Hon.  C.  C.  Clay,  jr.,  Chairman  on  Commerce  United 
States  Senate,  and  was  undoubtedly  designed  to  influence  the  question 
of  my  confirmation  as  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  now  })ending 
before  that  body. 

Although  I  was  not  a  party  to  the  proceedings  before  your  com- 
mittee, and  have  not  been  favored  with  a  perusal  of  the  testimony^, 
which  you  have  seen  fit  to  take,  I  nevertheless  feel  at  liberty  to  say, 
without  any  undue  criticism  or  offence^  that  the  communication 
addressed  by  your  Chairman  to  Mr.  Clay  is  manifestly  a  partial  and 
imperfect  statement  of  the  whole  case  before  you,  and  embodies  con 


JOURNAL   OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  63 

elusions  as  to  the   facts  which ,  so  far  as    I  am  concerned,  are  alto- 
gether unwarrantable. 

Impressed,  as  you  must  be,  by  the  circumstance  that  the  investi- 
gation before  your  committee,  so  far  as  it  has  involved  my  personal 
conduct  and  character,  was  wholly  ex  parte,  that  it  was  neither  con- 
ducted nor  controlled  by  any  persons  who  felt  themselves  charged  with 
the  elucidation  of  facts  tending  to  my  exoneration,  you  will  readily 
perceive  that  very  great  injustice  may  be  done  to  me  by  the  mode  by 
which  the  conclusions  at  which  your  committee  may  have  arrived 
have  been  presented  to  the  Senate  committee. 

I  feel  at  liberty  to  add  that  your  honorable  chairman  has,  for  a  long 
period,  sustained  towards  myself  relations  other  than  those  of  personal 
kindness  and  confidence,  and  I  feel  aggrieved  lest  the  statements 
which  have  been  by  him,  as  chairman  of  your  committee,  communi- 
cated to  the  Senate  committee  have  been,  perhaps,  without  design, 
subject  to  the  bias  of  personal  or  party  prejudice. 

My  object  in  addressing  you  this  letter  is  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  matter  of  the  communication  referred  to,  and  to  inquire  whether 
it  was  made  in  the  manner  and  form  which  it  has  assumed  by  the 
authority  of  your  committee  or  the  majority  thereof,  and  to  further 
inquire  whether,  in  your  judgment,  the  facts  and  circumstances  devel- 
oped before  you  by  reliable  testimony  subject  my  personal  conduct  and 
official  character  to  the  serious  imputations  which  seem  to  be  insin- 
uated rather  than  charged  in  the  communication  of  your  chairman. 

If  not,  and  as  I  am  not  without  apprehension  the  communication 
in  question  has  not  officially  emanated  from  you,  I  submit  it  to  your 
sense  of  propriety  and  justice  to  take  such  measures  for  my  own  vin- 
dication and  that  of  your  committee  (should  such  be  deemed  neces- 
sary) as  you  may  consider  essential  to  the  proper  discharge  of  the 
important  public  duty  devolved  upon  you. 

If  any  explanation  of  the  cause  of  my  having  thus  addressed  you  is 
deemed  appropriate,  I  will  remind  you  of  the  fact  that  my  con- 
firmation by  the  Senate  to  the  office  of  collector  of  tiie  port  of  New 
York  is  sought  by  personal  enemies  to  be  defeated  by  means  of  the 
developments  before  your  committee,  and  I  am  not  satisfied  that  your 
committee  have  determined  that  such  purpose  may  rightfully  be  facili- 
tated by  the  measure  which  has  been  resorted  to  and  by  the  manner 
of  the  communication  of  which  I  complain. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  with  great  respect,  your  very  obedient 
servant, 

AUGUSTUS  SCHELL. 

Hon.  Messrs.  Florence,  Wood,  Hopkins,  and  Hall, 

CommiW  e,  &c. 

The  communication  alluded  to,  and  enclosed  by  Mr.  Schelly  reads 
as  follows  : 


64  JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

House  of  Representatives, 

TVashington,  May  25,  1858. 

Dear  Sir:  Upon  my  return  from  New  York  this  morning  I  found 
upon  my  desk  your  note,  dated  Senate  Chamber,  May  24,  1858, 
to  the  following  effect :  ''If  you  have  any  evidence  to  show  A.  Schell 
unworthy  of  the  confidence  of  the  Senate  as  collector  of  the  customs 
at  New  York,  I  wish,  in  justice  to  the  Senate  and  the  country,  you 
would  send  it  to  me,  or  some  other  senator.  It  will  be  returned  if  re- 
quested." I  presume  the  evidence  to  which  you  allude  is  the  evi- 
dence given  before  the  Wilkins'  Point  investigating  committee,  of 
which  I  am  the  chairman,  and  I  have  the  honor  to  communicate  to 
you  the  following : 

On  the  13th  of  April,  1857,  the  Secretary  of  War  addressed  A. 
Schell  a  letter  on  the  subject  of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property,  which 
the  evidence  affords  me  reason  to  believe  was  obtained  here  and  taken 
to  him  by  John  C.  Mather  in  company  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore. 
The  object  of  the  Secretary  of  War  will  be  seen  from  the  following  ex- 
tracts from  his  letter : 

"  A  negotiation  has  been  pending  for  some  time  between  the  United 
States  authorities  and  some  parties  in  New  York,  for  the  purchase  of 
a  site  for  the  proposed  fort  at  the  Narrows,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 
I  send  you  herewith  a  map  indicating  the  precise  locality,  which,  I 
presume,  from  your  residence  in  New  York,  you  are  familiar  with. 

''The  purchase  has  been  under  discussion  in  the  cabinet  on  several 
occasions,  and  the  opinion  seems  to  prevail,  which  is  mine,  that  the 
price  asked  for  the  land  is  exorbitant.  *  *  ^ 

"The  object  of  this  communication  is  to  request  that  you  will  pro- 
ceed at  once  to  ascertain,  as  far  as  practicable,  and  by  such  means  as 
you  can  fully  rely  upon,  the  fair  value  of  this  land.  I  desire  you  to 
communicate  with  Mr.   Isaac  V.  Fowler,  and  get  his  estimate  like- 

■«T|TiQ/i  3|C  SJC  3|C  3|C  3fC  ;^C  ^ 

"  I  should  be  glad  if  you  would  fortify  the  opinion  of  yourself  and 
Mr.  Fowler  by  those  of  such  real  estate  agents  as  deserve  the  con- 
fidence of  the  community  there  from  their  standing  and  intelli- 
gence. JJC  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"  My  object  you  will  see  at  once  is  to  procure  such  information  as  will 
enable  the  government  to  pay  a  fair  price  for  the  property,  and  to  pro- 
tect it  against  extortion.  I  enjoin  it  upon  you,  therefore,  to  proceed 
with  that  sort  of  caution  and  secresy  which  will  enable  you  to  avoid 
being  imposed  upon  by  any  combination." 

Acting  upon  the  request  contained  in  this  letter,  Mr.  A.  Schell  and 
Mr.  Fowler  (the  hitter  by  the  request  and  appointment  of  the  former) 
went  down  to  Wilkins'  Point  to  view  the  property  ;  but,  instead  of 
])roceeding  witli  caution  and  secresy,  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  who 
was  nearly  every  day  in  Mr.  A.  Scliell's  office,  according  to  his  own 
testimony,  learned  that  it  would  be  agreeable  to  Mr.  Schell  to  have 
his  company,  and  he  accordingly,  with  George  Irving,  met  him  at 
Flusliing  and  accompanied  him  to  the  i)ro])erty. 

Fowler  testifies  that  he  tliought  Wissmann,  who  lived  on  the  pro- 
])erty,  was  the  owner  ol"  it,  and  did  not  know  that  George  Irving  or 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore  had  anything  to  do  with  it;  and  that  his  opinion 


JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL    COMMITTEE.  G5 

as  to  the  value  of  the  property  was  governed  entirely  by  the  statements 
and  representations  of  A.  Schell,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  George  Irving, 
and  Andrew  H.  Mickle. 

After  viewing  the  property,  Mr.  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler  returned  to 
Kew  York,  in  comi)any  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore. 

The  evidence  shows  that  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  was  the  master- 
spirit in  forming  the  combination  which  purchased  this  property  from 
the  original  owner,  and  afterwards  sold  it  at  a  most  exorbitant  and 
unjust  price  to  the  government. 

The  evidence  shows  that  A.  Schell  permitted  Prosper  M.  Wetmore 
to  write  such  a  letter  as  he  desired  in  reference  to  the  value  of  the 
property,  and  to  get  it  signed  by  the  real  estate  agents  in  New  York_, 
and  that  Schell  forwarded  it  to  Washington,  in  compliance  with  the 
request  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

The  evidence  shows  that  a  majority  of  the  real  estate  brokers  who 
signed  that  letter  of  valuation  at  the  request  of  Wetmore  had  not 
examined  the  property,  and  signed  it  because  they  were  paid  $50  apiece 
as  a  fee  for  their  signatures. 

The  evidence  shows  that  A.  Schell  called  on  Anthony  J.  Bleecker, 
the  largest  and  most  reliable  real  estate  broker  in  New  York,  and 
asked  him  whether  he  had  signed  that  letter,  and  that  Bleecker  told 
him  no,  he  had  not,  and  would  not ;  that  he  had  told  Wetmore  when 
he  presented  it  to  him  that  he  could  not  sign  it,  because  he  knew  the 
property  was  not  worth  near  half  the  sum  at  which  it  was  then 
valued. 

The  evidence  shows  that  A.  Schell  called  on  A.  H.  Mickle,  and  re- 
quested him  to  sign  a  letter  estimating  the  property  as  worth  $1,500 
or  $2,000  an  acre,  and  that  Mickle  absolutely  rei'used  to  sign  tlie  let- 
ter. He  testifies  that  it  was  not  worth  half  that  sum,  but  signed  a 
letter  which  Fowler  testifies  he  thinks  Schell  wrote.  S[)eaking  in 
general  terms  of  the  beautiful  location  of"  the  property,  and  its  adapta- 
bility for  gentlemen's  country  seats,  Mr.  Mickle  testifies  that,  in  his 
0()inion,  $100,000  would  be  a  high  price  to  pay  for  the  property  for 
speculative  purposes. 

It  does  not  appear  from  the  evidence  that  A.  Schell  took  the  opinion 
of  any  other  experts  than  Mr.  Bleecker,  Mr.  Mickle,  and  Mr.  John 
Gryder,  who  owned  a  more  valuable  farm  of  75  acres  in  the  vicinity 
of  Wilkins'  Point,  known  as  "  Cryder's  Point,"  which  was  well 
adapted  for  the  fortification,  and  which,  with  much  more  valuable 
improvements  upon  it,  he  was  willing  to  sell  to  government  for 
$80,000.  A.  Scliell  seems  to  have  relied  almost  altogether  upon  the 
certificate  of  three  or  four  real  estate  brokers  which  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more procured. 

Henry  Grinnell,  at  the  request  of  A.  Schell,  wrote  to  him,  under 
date  of  24th  April,  '^that  he  had  deferred  replying  to  his  in(j[uiries  as 
to  the  value  ot  the  land  at  Willett's  Point  and  the  neighborhood, 
expecting  to  see  some  persons  who  were  more  competent  than  himself, 
and  obtain  their  opinion,  but  that  he  had  not  been  so  fortunate  as  to 
meet  them.  Grinnell,  in  his  letter  to  Schell,  says:  ^'I  own  about 
10  acres  on  White  Stone  Point,  which  1  value  at  $;:}0,000  ;  whether  it 
would  bring  that  sum  I  cannot  say.  I  do  not  think  my  evidence 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549 5 


66  JOUENAL    OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 

should  have  much  weij^ht.     I  regret  that  I  cannot  give  you  evidence 
that  wouhl  be  more  satisfactory." 

A.  Schell,  in  his  reply  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  under  date  of  April 
24,  1857,  says : 

^'Sir:  In  obedience  to  your  request,  as  contained  in  your  letter  of 
13th  April  instant,  we  have  made  inquiries  as  to  the  value  of  the 
property  known  as  Willett's  Point,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

"  The  property  is  situated  on  the  East  river,  at  a  convenient  dis- 
tance from  New  York,  being  one  hour  by  boat  or  railroad,  and  is 
decidedly  the  most  eligible  and  desirable  position  for  the  erection  of 
summer  residences,  for  which  purpose  the  property  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  has  been  used  by  many  of  the  leading  and  wealthy  merchants, 
and  the  land  fronting  on  the  water  in  that  vicinity  is  held  by  the 
owners  at  irom  $1,000  to  $3,000  per  acre.  We  have  made  inquiries 
of  persons  living  in  the  vicinity,  and  have  also  procured  a  statement 
from  several  auctioneers  in  the  city  who  are  acquainted  with  the  prop- 
erty, and  all  concur  in  estimating  it  to  be  of  great  value.  A  certificate, 
signed  by  some  of  the  persons  inquired  of,  is  herewith  transmitted. 

"  We  also  transmit  a  letter  from  Mr.  Henry  Grinnell,  who  owns  a 
2)oint  of  land  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Willett's  Point,  which  he 
values  at  $3,000,  and  which,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Mickle,  (whose 
letter  we  also  send,)  also  a  land-holder  in  the  neighborhood^,  is  not  of 
greater  value  than  that  in  question. 

"  An  additional  value  is  given  to  this  land  from  a  recent  act  of  the 
legislature,  said  to  have  been  passed,  giving  the  ownersthe  right  to  land 
under  water  to  the  distance  of  four  hundred  feet  from  low  water  mark. 

*'  Relying  upon  the  statement  made  in  answer  to  our  inquiries,  and 
also  from  a  personal  insi)ection  of  the  property,  we  think  that  if  the 
quantity  of  land  is  as  represented,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars  f6r  the  same  cannot  be  considered  an  exorbitant  })iice. 

*'  With  great  respect,  we  remain  vour  obedient  servants, 

^'  AUGUSTUS  SCHELL, 
^^  ISAAC  V.  FOWLER.'' 

Trie  evidence  shows  that  this  property  had  been  in  the  market  for 
gale  ior  years  previous  to  its  purchase  by  the  government,  and  that 
frequent  efforts  had  been  made  to  sell  the  whole,  or  part  of  it,  at  $500 
per  acre. 

J.  D.  Williamson,  who  surveyed  it  in  January,  1856,  and  divided 
it  into  villa  ])lots,  then  received  an  order  to  sell  it,  and  the  agreement 
was  that  it  he  could  get  $55,000  for  the  whole  plot  (over  forty  acres 
more  than  the  government  have  purchased)  he  was  to  be  j)aid  a  com- 
mission of  five  ])er  cent,  on  it,  and  that  if  he  got  more  he  was  to  receive 
half  of  all  he  got  over  $55,000,  with  his  five  per  cent,  commission 
besides. 

Grahams  Polley,  a  wealthy  merchant  of  Williamsburgh,  New  York, 
testified  that  Wissnian  called  on  him  several  times  in  July,  185G,  and 
urged  the  sale  of  it,  and  that  he  could  have  purchased  the  whole 
property  then  for  $45,000. 

Williamson  testified  that  he  made  very  little  effort  to  sell  the 
property,  because  the  i)rice  asked,  in  his  opinion,  was  so  exorbitant 
that  no  one  would  touch  it. 


JOURNAL   OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  67 

Henry  Day  purchased  a  portion  of  the  property,  on  the  19th  of 
"November,  1856,  from  Wissraann,  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  a  villa 
upon  it.  He  had  the  privileoje  of  selecting  his  site,  and  paid  from 
four  hundred  to  five  hundred  dollars  an  acre  for  it. 

Hon.  John  W.  Lawrence,  late  a  member  of  Congress,  was  authorized 
by  Wissraann,  the  original  owner,  up  to  the  time  he  sold  to  George 
Irving,  in  April,  1857,  to  sell  the  whole  property  to  the  government 
for  $100,000,  which  fact  the  Engineer  Bureau  was  duly  informed  of. 

Cryder,  who  owns  the  point  adjoining  Wilkins',  when  approached 
by  A.  Schell  on  the  subject,  offered  to  sell  his  property,  which  was  a 
great  deal  more  improved  than  Wilkins'  Point,  for  §1,100  an  acre, 
improvements  included.     This  appears  from  A.  Schell 's  testimony. 

By  far  the  largest  number  of  witnesses  who  were  examined  as  to 
the  value  of  the  f)roperty  at  Wilkins'  Point  agreed  in  placing  the 
value  at  about  $500  an  acre,  and  none  except  those  who  were  in  some 
way  connected  with  the  combination  which  sold  to  the  government 
estimated  it  at  over  $1,000  an  acre. 

In  regard  to  the  health  of  Wilkins'  Point,  Colonel  Smith,  who  has 
charge  of  the  fortifications  now  being  erected  there,  testified  that  ad- 
ditional buildings  had  to  be  erected  at  Fort  Schuyler  to  accommodate 
the  men  who  were  taken  sick  with  fever  and  ague  while  at  work  at 
Wilkins'  Point,  and  others  testified  that  a  large  part  of  the  property 
was  low  land  and  marsh,  and  that  there  was  a  great  deal  of  fever  and 
ague  there 

In  relation  to  the  act  of  the  New  York  legislature  giving  additional 
value  to  the  property  by  extending  the  right  of  owners  to  land  under 
water  to  the  distance  of  four  hundred  fieet  from  low  water  mark,  to  wliich 
A.  Schell,  in  his  reply  to  the  Secretary  ot  War,  alludes,  the  right 
was  only  given  to  the  United  States  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  passed  the  15th  of  April,  1857,  to  such  land  as 
the  government  might  purchase  or  condemn  on  the  island  of  Long 
Island,  and  the  former  owners  of  Wilkins'  Point  never  possessed  the 
right,  and  therefore  could  not,  and  did  not,  sell  it  to  the  United  States. 

A.  Schell  testified  that  he  did  not  know  his  brother  Richard  was 
interested  in  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government. 

From  the  evidence  it  appears  that  Augustus  Schell  and  Richard 
Schell  have  for  years  past  lived  together. 

That  A.  Schell  and  Kichard  Schell  were  together  here  in  Washing- 
ton, stop{)ing  at  the  same  hotel  when  Richard  was  here  on  business 
connected  with  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government,  and  that 
they  left  together. 

That  Richard  Schell  and  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  met  Isaac  V.  Fow- 
ler on  the  steps  of  the  custom-house  on  the  day  their  joint  letter  in 
reply  to  the  Secretary  of  War  was  sent,  and  inquired  of  him  wliether 
the  letter  had  been  sent — "  that  it  was  im{)ortant  it  should  go  that 
day,"  and  that  Augustus  Schell  gave  his  brother  Richard  a  letter  of 
introduction  to  Lieutenant  Grillmore,  when  Richard  went  on  the  9th 
of  July,  1857,  to  get  the  draft  for  $115,000  in  part  payment  for  the 
property,  in  which  he  stated  that  Richard  wished  to  see  Gillmore  '^on 
business  requiring  attention  that  day." 

In  conclusion,  1  would  state  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  evidence  proves, 


fS  JOUFNAL    OF    THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

"beyond  all  doubt,  tliat  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  Kichard  Sell  ell,  and 
Jolm  C.  Mather  were  of  the  combination  to  obtain,  and  that  they 
did  obtain  the  purchase  by  the  government  of  tiie  property  for 
$2(10,000,  when  it  was  not  intrinsically  wortli  over  $50,0o0. 

It  proves  that  Richard  Schell  advanced,  from  April  15,  185T,  to  July 
9,  1857,  $10,000,  and  in  addition,  from  3d  July  to  9th  July,  1857,  iroin 
$18,000  to  $20,000,  to  enable  the  combination  to  purchase  the  property 
irom  its  owner  and  occupant,  and  to  enable  them  to  sell  and  consummate 
tlie  sale  to  the  government  for  $200,000.  It  proves  that  Augustus 
Schell  certified  the  property  to  be  worth  $200,000  with  no  evidence  be- 
fore him  that  fairly  warranted  his  certificate  going  beyond  $100,000.  It 
proves  that  Richard  Schell  received  the  whole  of  the  $115,000  paid 
by  the  government  on  the  9th  of  July,  1857,  and  that  he  has  had 
this  amount,  less  $10,000  or  $12,000  paid  to  George  Irving,  the 
nominal  seller  of  the  property  to  the  government,  and  the  payment  of 
the  incumbrance  upon  the  property  when  the  government  purchased, 
DOW  and  ever  since  it  was  paid  to  him  by  the  government,  unless  he 
has  divided  it  among  those  he  was  combined  with,  which  could  not 
be  asce^-tained,  because  he  destroyed  his  check  books  immediately  after 
this  investigation  was  ordered,  as  appears  from  his  own  testimony. 
It  proves  that  tliere  was  a  fraudulent  combination  to  extort  an  un- 
fair, exorbitant,  and  most  unjust  price  from  the  government  in  the 
sale  of  this  property,  and  that  Augustus  Schell,  by  the  unwarranted 
giving  of  his  certificate,  contributed  to  and  enabled  the  success  of  the 
conibination  in  the  matter.  It  proves  that  Richard  Schell,  when  he 
knew  that  the  deputy  district  attorney  of  the  United  States  for  the 
southern  district  of  New  York  had  the  papers  connected  with  the  title 
to  this  property  and  was  examining  them  previous  to  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  purchase  by  the  government,  offered  to  employ  said  deputy 
district  attorney  as  his  counsel,  and  pay  him  $500  to  pass  the  title  at 
once. 

In  the  deed  of  George  Irving  to  the  government,  the  property  is 
represented  as  containing  110  acres,  more  or  less.  Since  the  govern- 
ment has  become  possessed  of  it,  it  has  been  shown,  by  actual  survey, 
to  contain  about  95  acres. 

The  evidence  u[)on  which  the  foregoing  statement  is  based  is  volu- 
minous, but  can  be  copied  and  furnished  you  in  the  course  of  three  or 
four  days,  if  required. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  HASKIN,  Chairman,  do, 

Hon.  C.  C.  Clay,  Jr., 

Chairman  Committee  on  Commerce, 

The  chairman  stated  that  on  his  return  from  New  York  on  the 
25th  of  May,  he  found  the  following  note  from  Senator  Clay  awaiting 
him  : 

Senate  Chamber,  3Ta2j  24,  1858. 
Dear  Sir:   If  you  have  any  evidence  to  show  A.  Schell  unworthy 
of  the  confidence  of  the  Senate,  as  collector  of  customs  at  New  York, 


JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  69 

I  wish,  in  justice  to  the  Senate  and  the  country,  you  would  send  it  to 
me  or  some  other  senator.     It  will  he  returned  if  requested. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  C.  CLAY,  Jr. 

Hon.  J.  B.  Haskin. 

That  in  reply  to  this  note  he  had  written  the  communication  com- 
mented upon  by  Mr.  Schell,  and  he  was  individually  responsible  for 
it.  He  quoted  from  the  communication  to  show  that  in  it  he  only 
expressed  his  own  opinions  based  upon  the  evidence  taken  before  the 
committee.  He  thought  that  it  was  due  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  that  they  should  be  placed  in  possession  of  the  facts  of  the  case, 
so  far  as  they  related  to  Mr.  Augustus  Schell,  whose  confirmation  for 
an  important  position  under  the  government  they  had  to  act  upon  ; 
and  it  was  his  determination,  if  the  committee  decided  that  he  had 
acted  improperly  in  replying  to  Senator  Chiy  in  this  communication, 
to  bring  the  subject  before  the  House  and  take  its  sense  upon  it. 

On  motion  of  ilr.  Hall, 

Ordered^  That  the  clerk  of  the  committee  be  directed  to  inform  Mr. 
A.  Schell  that  the  committee  never  authorized  the  statement  referred 
to  in  his  letter,  and  that  the  chairman  disclaimed  having  furnished  it 
as  emanating  from  the  committee. 

Under  this  order  the  clerk  addressed  the  following  note  to  Mr.  A. 
Schell,  which  was  approved  by  the  committee  and  sent  to  him : 

'^  Washington,  June  1,  1858. 

'^Sm:  Your  letter  of  May  29th,  addressed  to  'Hon.  Messrs.  Flor- 
ence, Wood,  Hopkins,  and  llall,  committee,  &c.,'  and  the  statement 
enclosed,  were  laid  before  the  committee  this  morning  by  Mr.  Florence. 
"I  am  directed  by  the  committee  to  inform  you  that  they  never  au- 
thorized the  statement,  and  that  the  chairman  (Mr.  Haskin)  disclaim-} 
having  furnished  it  to  Mr.  Clay  as  a  statement  emanating  from  the 
committee,  quoting  from  it  as  follows:  'In  conclusion  I  would  state 
that,  in  ray  opinion,'  &c.,  to  show  that  it  was  given  on  his  individual 
responsibility. 

*'  Respectfully, 

''JAMES  B.  SHERIDAN, 

"  Clerk  to  Committee, 
^'Hon.  Augustus  Schell." 

The  committee  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning. 

Wednesday,  June  2,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  in  Mr.  Hall's  room,  Willards' 
Hotel. 

Present:     All  the  members. 

Hon.  John  B.  Floyd  returned  to  the  committee  the  copy  of  his  testi- 
mony which  had  been  furnished  him,  with  several  corrections  sug- 
gested. 


70  JOURNAL    OF    TI7E    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

It  was  read  over,  aud  the  corrections  ordered  to  be  made  in  the 
original. 

Mr.  Chairman  inquired  of  the  members  of  the  committee  whether 
they  had  prepare'.'  the  views  they  desired  to  submit  to  the  House  on 
the  case. 

It  appearing  that  no  member  was  so  prepared,  the  committee  ad- 
journed to  meet  at  the  same  place  at  8  o'clock  p.  m. 

Eight  o'clock  p.  m. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Present :   All  the  members. 

Mr.  Hopkins  laid  before  the  committee  the  following  letter  and  en- 
closure from  Hon.  J.  B.  Floyd,  Secretary  of  War  : 

War  Department, 
Washington,  June  2,  1858. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  enclose  a  copy  of  a  letter  written  by  General  Totten, 
chief  of  the  Engineer  Bureau,  to  Major  Barnard,  the  engineer  in 
charge  of  the  works  at  Willett's  Point,  with  a  request  to  lay  it  before 
the  committee.  Strange  to  say,  I  never  saw  this  letter  until  yester- 
day, nor  did  I  know  of  its  existence  before.  It,  should  have  been  long 
ago  furnished  the  committee  upon  their  call  for  papers,  and  I  am 
wholly  unable  to  account  for  the  omission  in  the  bureau  to  send  it. 

You  will  see  from  this  letter  of  General  Totten  to  the  engineer  in 
charge.  Major  Barnard,  that  the  proposition  to  negotiate  for  the  lands 
at  Willett's  Point  was  withheld  from  me  until  after  Wissmann  had 
sold  them  to  Irving.  Tliis  letter  is  dated  the  2Gth  of  March,  in  which 
the  general  says:  ''I  have  no  idea  that  the  Secretary  of  War  will 
authorize  an  offer  to  Mr.  Wissmann  of  the  sum  you  mention  for  the 
property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  and  therefore  have  not  submitted  it  to 
him  ;"  and  the  sale  from  W^issmann  to  Irving  was,  I  understand,  made 
on  the  27th  of  March.  This  letter  becomes  important  in  showing  that 
1  never  had  an  opportunity  of  purchasing  the  land  from  any  one  but 
Irving. 

Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 
Secretary  of  War, 

Hon.  George  W.  Hopkins, 

House  of  Representatives, 

Copy  of  letter  referred  to  in  Hon.  J.  B.  Floyd's  letter. 

^^  Engineer  Department, 
''Washington,  March  26,  1857. 

*'Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  24th  instant,  on  the  subject  of  the  land 
required  for  the  site  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Scliuyler,  has  been 
received,  with  the  two  tracings  of  the  ground  in  the  vicinity  of 
'  Wilkins'  Point,'  and  the  'old  fort.' 

"As  the  prices  demanded  by  tlie  owners  of  the  land  are  considered 
exorbitant,   I  deem   it  of  the  utmost  importance  that  you  should, 


JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE.  71 

during  your  personal  examination  of  the  locality,  confer  with  persons 
residing  in  the  neighborhood  in  reference  to  the  value  of  similar 
property  around  them,  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  the 
prices  demanded  are  considered  fair  by  persons  on  the  spot. 

'*  I  have  no  idea  that  the  Secretary  of  War  will  authorize  an  offer  to 
Mr.  Wissmann  of  the  sum  you  mention  for  his  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point,  and  therefore  have  not  submitted  your  proposition  to  liim. 
Should  it  even  prove,  after  further  negotiations  and  investigations,  that 
the  land  cannot  be  procured  on  better  terms  than  those  now  offered, 
it  is  still  very  doubtful  whether  so  large  a  sum  should  be  paid  except 
on  the  award  of  a  jury.  It  is  therefore  the  more  indispensable  that 
a  !aw  should  be  at  once  obtained  authorizing  the  condemnation  of  the 
land,  whether  to  be  resorted  to  or  not. 

•^  Any  objection  which  the  legislature  may  make  to  granting  juris- 
diction over  such  land  as  the  government  may  purchase  for  the  site 
can,  I  think,  be  easily  removed  by  explaining,  in  person^  the  reasons 
for  asking  it ;  and  you  are  therefore  authorized  to  visit  Albany  for 
this  purpose,  and-  to  attend  to  any  other  matters  connected  with  the 
subject  of  jurisdiction  and  condemnation  of  the  property  which  may 
be  advanced  by  your  ])ersonal  attention. 

'''The  sketch  of  Wilkins'  Point,  furnished  with  your  letter,  and  to 
wliich  you  refer  for  the  position  and  houndaries  of  Mr.  Day's  tract, 
does  not  afford  such  iniormation,  and  is  therefore  returned,  with  a 
recuest  that  you  will  have  the  tracts,  both  of  Mr,  Day  and  Mr.  Wiss- 
mann, distinctly  marked  thereon. 

"  The  letter  of  Mr.  Day  to  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  is  returned  herewith, 
as  requested. 

''  I  am,  &c., 

^'JOS.  a.  TOTTEN, 
^^  Brevet  Brig,  Gen.  and  Col.  of  Engineers, 

"  Major  J.  G.  Barnard, 

*'  Corps  of  Engineers^  New  York.'' 

^'Engineer  Department,  June  1,  1858. 

"  I  certify  that  the  above  and  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the 
records  of  this  office. 

''¥.  N.  BAHBOUR,  Chief  Clerk.'' 

The  Chairman  said  that  he  had  seen  the  letter  before,  and  he  felt 
confident  that  it  was  among  the  papers  furnished  the  committee  by 
the  War  Department,  near  the  commencement  of  their  session. 

Upon  an  examination  of  the  papers  it  was  found  that  a  copy  of  the 
letter  was  already  in  the  possession  of  the  committee,  certified  as 
follows  : 

^^  Engineer  Department, 

"  February  25,  1858. 

^^  A  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

'^  H.  a.  WRIGHT, 
'^  Captain  of  Engineers ^  in  charge." 

and  prepared  for  publication  in  the  Appendix,  marked  E. 


72  JOQKNAL    OF    THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE 

Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  Mr.  Florence,  and  Mr.  Hall,  still  being 
unprepared  to  submit  their  views^  the  committee  adjourned  until 
Friday  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

Friday,  June  4,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock,  at  Mr.  Hall's  room,  Willards' 
Hotel. 

Present :   All  the  members. 

Ko  member  being  ready  to  submit  his  report. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

Saturday,  June  5,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock,  at  Mr.  Hall's  room,  Willards' 
Hotel. 

Present :  All  the  members. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chairman, 

liesolved,  That  the  committee  will  meet  in  their  committee  room 
at  the  Capitol,  at  Monday  next,  at  9  o'clock  a.  ra.,  and  that  the  mem- 
bers who  desire  to  report  their  views  to  the  House  shall  come  prepared 
to  read  their  statements  at  that  time. 

Adjourned  until  Monday. 

Monday,,  June  7,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock.     Present :  All  the  members. 

Mr.  Hopkins  inquired  of  the  Chairman  whether  the  clerk  and  steno- 
grapher of  the  committee  had  yet  been  sworn? 

Mr.  Chairman  replied  that  he  had. 

Mr.  Hall  asked  whetlier  the  oath  had  been  administered  while  die 
committee  was  in  session  ? 

Mr.  Chairman  answered  tha^  it  had  not. 

Mr.  Hall  said  that  it  did  not  then  appear  upon  the  journal. 

Mr.  Hopkins  said  that  he  desired  to  ask  Mr.  Sheridan  several  ques- 
tions, and  wished  the  oath  administered  to  him  in  the  presence  of  the 
committee. 

James  B.  Sheridan  was  accordingly  again  sworn  to  perform  the 
duties  of  stenographer  and  clerk  to  the  committee,  faithfully  and 
truly. 

Mr.  Hopkins  inquired  of  Mr.  Sheridan  whether  the  evidence  as 
printed  by  tlie  House  ])rinter  was  correctly  printed. 

Mr.  Slieridan  stated  to  the  committee  that  the  House  ])rinter  had 
furnislied  them  with  copies  of  the  testimony  before  it  was  corrected, 
and  that  the  copies  in  their  j)08session  were  not  correctly  printed  from 
the  manuscript.  The  testimony  would  be  revised  and  corrected  before 
it  was  finally  published. 

Mr.  Florence  irnjuired  of  Mr.  Sheridan  whether  he  had  given  the 
New  York  Times  a  copy  of  the  evidence  which  had  appeared  in  that 
paper? 

Mr.  Sheridan  replied  that  he  had  not ;  and  suggested  tliat  perhai)s 
Mr.  Omstead,  the  correspondent  of  that  paper,  could  furnish  the  com- 
mittee witli  the  name  oi"  the  ])ers()n  who  gave  it. 

Mr.  Hall  said  that  he  could  not. 


JOURNAL   OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  73 

Mr.  Hopkins  stated  that  he  had  been  informed,  but  not  by  the  pub- 
lic printer,  that  the  manuscript  had  been  changed  in  many  particu- 
lars, and  he  proposed  to  subpoena  the  public  printer  and  his  foreman 
to  appear  before  the  committee  with  the  original  manuscript  and  the 
printed  copy  to  show  wherein  changes  had  been  made.  He  said  that 
on  page  209,  in  the  following  paragraph  : 

'^  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Horace  F.  Clark  asked  me  about  his  evidence, 
and  I  told  him,  as  near  as  I  could  recollect,  everything  he  swore  to. 
I  knew  his  examination  was  a  satisfactory  one,  and  proved  to  me  that 
he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  combination  which  effected  the  sale  of 
this  property  to  the  government." 

The  words  ''and  proved  to  me  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
combination  which  effected  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government'' 
had  been  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Chairman  stated  that  this  passage  had  arrested  his  attention 
on  Friday  last,  and,  as  it  was  a  mistake  of  the  stenographer,  or  had 
been  interpolated  at  the  printing  ofhce,  he  never  having  expressed 
himself  as  he  was  there  reported,  he  had  stricken  it  out. 

Mr.  Hopkins  inquired  of  the  Chairman  whether  he  had  examined 
the  original  manuscript  furnished  the  printer  by  Mr.  Sheridan? 

Mr.  Chairman  replied  that  he  had  not. 

Mr.  Hopkins  said  that  the  expression  was  the  same  in  the  original 
manuscript  as  in  the  printed  copy. 

Mr.  Sheridan  stated  that  he  had  made  no  corrections  in  the  testi- 
mony unless  they  were  ordered  by  the  committee,  and  that  he  had 
allowed  the  members  of  the  committee  to  make  such  alterations  as 
they  desired  in  the  remarks  made  by  them  in  the  discussions  wliich 
occurred  during  the  examination  of  witnesses.  He  reminded  Mr. 
Hoi)kins  that  at  his  desire  he  had  stricken  out  a  personal  explanation 
made  by  him. 

Mr.  Chairman  said  that  he  thought  it  was  proper  for  the  members 
of  the  committee  to  correct  the  report  of  their  remarks  if  they  desired 
to  do  so.  In  this  instance  he  had  been  misrepresented,  and  had  cor- 
rected the  report  by  striking  out  the  expression  which  he  had  not  used. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  H()[)kins, 

Ordered^  That  the  Chairman  request  the  Speaker  to  issue  his  sum- 
mons for  C.  Wendell  and  Mr.  English  to  appear  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  Hopkins  then  commenced  reading  his  statement,  but  was  com- 
pelled to  stop  by  exhaustion  before  he  concluded  it. 

Mr.  Wood  and  Mr.  Hall  also  read  statements,  which  they  proposed 
presenting  to  the  House,  as  embodying  their  views  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Cliairman  offered  the  following  preamble  and  resolution,  which 
were  unanimously  adopted  : 

The  views  of  the  several  members  of  this  committee  not  agreeing 
so  as  to  enable  their  joining  in  a  majority  report  upon  the  facts  and 
circumstances  referred  to  them  and  inquired  into  by  them. 

Resolved,  That  the  several  members  of  tlie  committee  be,  and  they 
are  hereby,  authorized  to  report  to  the  House  a  statement  of  their 
views  and  conclusions  upon  the  subject  referred. 

The  committee  then  adjourned. 


74  JOURNAL   OF    THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 


Tuesday,  June  8,  1858. 

Tlie  committee  met  at  11  o'clock,  in  the  room  adjoining  the  ser- 
geant-at-arms'  office. 

Present :  All  the  members. 

James  English  sworn  : 

Examined  by  Mr.  Hopkins. 

Question.   Have  you  brought  up  the  proof  corrected  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  State  what  I  did  when  I  called  on  Friday  to  get 
the  evidence. 

Answer.  You  came  in  about  8  o'clock  to  get  the  evidence,  and  I 
gave  you  copies  of  signatures  12,  13,  and  14.  About  half  an  hour 
after  you  left  you  came  back,  and  remarked  that  there  was  a  great 
blunder  in  one  of  them,  showing  me  two  lines  which  you  had  stricken 
out  on  page  209  of  the  printed  matter  ;  that  you  had  never  used  any 
such  language  as  that. 

The  Chairman.   What  else  occurred? 

Answer.  Then,  as  you  were  going  out,  I  requested  you  to  look 
over  the  whole  three  signatures  and  make  any  other  corrections  you 
thought  proper.     You  then  made  some  typographical  corrections. 

Question.  Was  not  correcting  Joachimsen's  name,  Avliich  was 
printed  "Joachim"  in  the  proof,  one  of  them? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  not  another  correction  the  insertion  of  the  word 
"not,"  in  order  to  make  sense  in  a  question  which  read,  "  Did  you," 
«fec.,  and  which  ought  to  have  read,   "Did  you  not,"  &c.  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  another,  the  insertion  of  a  naught,  so  as  to  make 
'  '$20, 000, "  as  it  was  incorrectly  printed  in  the  proof,  read ' '  $200, 000  ?' ' 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Were  not  all  the  corrections  I  made  merely  typographi- 
cal ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  all,  with  the  exception  of  the  one  in  which  you 
struck  out  the  two  lines. 

Question.   Did  I  not  make  those  corrections  at  your  request? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir,  except  the  striking  out  of  the  two  lines. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  Have  you  ever  made  any  other  altera- 
tions or  corrections  in  it? 

Answer.  None  whatever,  except  such  as  Mr.  Sheridan  has  ordered 
in  Governor  Floyd's  testimony,  and  one  or  two  others. 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  desire  to  make  this  statement  :  The  chairman,  or 
any  member  of  the  committee,  lias  a  perfect  right  to  correct  his  state- 
ments i)ublished  or  to  be  pubHshcd.  No  member  of  the  committee 
has  any  right  to  put  words  in  my  mouth.  I  would  liave  no  right  to 
change  the  evidence  of  any  witness  in  the  case,  and  have  not  done  it. 
I  struck  out  these  two  lines  which  appeared  in  my  remarks  openly 
and  above  board,  and  I  did  so  because  I  was  satisfied  that  I  had  never 
uttered  them.     Mr.  Hopkins  has  struck  out  of  the  report  statements 


JOURNAL   OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  75 

whicli  he  made  in  committee,  and  it  is  my  opinion  that  any  member 
of  the  committee  has  a  right  to  correct  his  remarks  if  they  are  incor- 
rectly reported.  I  had  no  expectation  that  what  was  said  at  that 
time  would  be  reported  :  the  committee  were  about  adjourning,  and 
I  do  not  see  what  necessity  there  was  for  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Wood.  In  relation  to  the  assertion  of  the  Chairman,  that  the 
committee  were  not  in  full  operation,  I  will  say,  that  the  witness  was  on 
the  stand,  that  we  were  examining  him,  and  that  the  Chairman  asked 
the  question  to  know  whether  he  had  not  asked  one  of  the  members  of 
the  committee  for  the  evidence  of  a  witness  who  had  previously  been 
examined,  and  the  witness  replied  he  did.  I  then  interfered,  and  made 
the  remarks  as  printed  here.  After  I  got  through  Mr.  Haskin  got 
up  and  made  some  remarks,  and  stated  what  he  had  told  Mr.  Clark, 
as  it  is  printed  here  or  written  in  the  manuscript.  A  portion  of  these 
remarks  made  by  the  Chairman  have  been  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the 
following  statement  on  page  39  : 

"Mr.  Hopkins.  I  wish  to  make  this  personal  explanation:  Gov- 
ernor Floyd's  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Preston,  owns  an  immense  pro- 
perty in  Washington  county,  Virginia,  worth  two  or  three  millions 
of  dollars  ;  a  salt  property ;  and  these  notes  may  have  been  dis- 
counted for  his  account.  In  addition  to  that,  Governor  Floyd  and 
his  brother  have  a  large  coal  property  and  salt  property  in  the  new 
county  of  McDowell,  Kentucky  ;  and  if  that  money  had  been  neces- 
sary to  their  operations  there,  would  it  be  an  uncommon  thing  for 
Governor  Floyd  to  apply  for  a  loan  to  Mr.  Schell  ?  vStill,  if  the  dis- 
counting of  these  notes  can  in  any  way  be  connected  with  the  pur- 
chase by  the  government  of  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  I  open 
the  door  wide  to  have  it  appear  ;  but  until  it  is  shown  I  do  not  think 
we  treat  the  Secretary  of  War  right  in  thus  prying  into  his  private 
matters." 

That  statement  was  struck  out  at  my  suggestion  in  Mr.  HalFs 
room.  It  was,  as  it  purports  on  its  face  to  be,  a  personal  explanation, 
which  I  did  not  expect  to  go  in.  It  may  be  in  or  out,  but  I  thought 
it  was  improperly  in,  because  it  was  a  personal  explanation,  not  re- 
lating to  the  proceedings  of  the  committee.  It  will  be  seen  that  it 
contains  no  admission,  and  nobody  in  the  world  can  complain  of  it 
unless  Governor  Floyd. 

Mr.  Wood.  It  was  upon  the  statement  of  the  Chairman,  as  con- 
tained in  his  remarks  here  printed,  that  I  made  the  following  re- 
marks : 

"Mr.  Wood.  That  was  an  additional  reason  for  my  supposing  that 
there  could  be  no  objection  to  his  having  a  copy  of  his  evidence.  I 
have  heard  out  of  doors,  and  have  seen  in  the  newspapers,  what  has 
occurred  here  in  committee  ;  and  knowing  that  I  had  never  imparted 
such  information,  I  did  not  think  any  importance  would  be  attached 
to  giving  Mr.  Schell  a  copy  of  his  evidence.'' 

The^Chairman.  I  could  not  have  made  the  remark,  because  I  told 
Horace  F.  Clark  that  Mr.  A.  Schell' s  evidence  by  itself  was  entirely 
satisfactory.      I  only  put  a  few  questions  to  Augustus  Schell.     I  did 


76  JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

not  conceive  tliat  he  would  convict  himself  of  having  connexion  with 
this  combination.  That  was  far  from  my  thoughts.  His  evidence 
was  brief,  and  the  only  thing  in  it  which  squinted  towards  his  having 
certified  beyond  a  proper  amount  was  the  statement  he  made  in  it 
that  he  called  on  Mr.  Cryder,  and  Avas  informed  by  him  that  he 
would  sell  his  place  for  $1, 100  an  acre.  He  did  not  say  that  Mr. 
Cryder  had  also  informed  him  that  the  Wilkins'  Point  projjerty  was 
worth  to  the  government  between  $700  and  $800  an  acre.  But  Mr. 
Cryder  so  testified  upon  his  examination  subsequently  ;  and  had  I 
even  stated  as  I  am  represented  in' these  remarks,  Mr.  Cryder's  sub- 
sequent examination  must  have  left  a  dilTerent  impression  upon  my 
mind.  I  did  not  so  state,  however  ;  and  all  I  did  state  was  that  Mr. 
Scliell's  examination  was  perfectly  satisfactory. 

To  rei)resent  me  here  as  saying  that  his  evidence  proved  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  this  combination,  is  to  put  me  in  opposition  to  the 
actual  facts,  my  own  theory  and  my  own  mind  on  the  subject.  I 
asked  but  few  questions  of  Mr.  Augustus  Schell,  expecting  him  to 
testify  just  as  he  did  ;  but  subsequently  Mr.  Cryder  was  examined, 
and  he  gave  a  very  difi'erent  coloring  to  Mr.  Scliell's  statements. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  In  rehition  to  my  statement,  I  will  let  it  be  in  if  the 
committee  desire  it. 

Mr.  Florence.   I  say  let  it  be  in. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Then  it  can  go  in,  with  one  or  two  corrections  which 
I  desire  to  make. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Hall  : 

Question.  But  ten  printed  copies  of  this  evidence  have  been  fur- 
nished the  committee  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Some  of  the  signatures  were  delivered  at  the 
printing  office,  others  were  sent  here  to  the  House,  and  some  were 
sent  up  to  Willard's  hotel. 

Question.  A  i)ortion  of  the  evidence  Avas  published  in  the  New 
York  Times  three  days  ago  ;  do  you  know  anything  about  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  know  of  no  living  soul  having  had  a  copy  ex- 
cept tiie  committee. 

Question.  You  never  delivered  a  coj)y  to  any  person  at  tlie  ofiico 
not  autliorized  by  the  committee  to  receive  it? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.   Has  Mr.  Banks  had  a  copy  of  it? 

Answer.  He  may  have  had,  but  he  must  have  got  it  from  the  com- 
mittee. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  AVliat  members  of  the  commtttee  liave 
come  to  the  office  for  copies  ? 

Answer.  No  member  except  Mr.  Haskin.  I  sent  tliree  signatures 
to  Mr.  Florence  at  the  re(]uest  of  Mr.  Wendell,  and  that  is  all  that 
was  ever  sent  out  of  the  office. 

Question.    How  many  signatures  have  been  publislied  ? 

Answer.    1  do  not  know. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.   When  was  the  evidiMice  all  completed? 

Answer,    (in  Thursday  evening  tin'  whole  evidence  was  completed. 


JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  77 

The  balance  of  the  testimony  was  brought  to  the  office  on  Thurs- 
day morning,  and  in  about  an  hour  after  the  appendix  was  furnished. 
At  noon  on  Friday  it  was  all  in  type,  and  Friday  evening  I  sent  a 
complete  copy  of  the  evidence  to  the  Chairman,  and  also  three  ap- 
pendixes. 

Question.   Why  was  it  not  done  on  Sunday  ? 

Answer.  On  Saturday  evening  Mr.  Haskin  and  Mr.  Sheridan 
brought  a  portion  of  the  copy  there,  enough  to  make  fifty  pages  of 
printed  copy,  and  said  that  they  Avould  deliver  the  balance  on  Sun- 
day. I  employed  a  very  large  force,  and  on  Sunday  there  was 
brought  enough  to  make  twenty-five  pages  more,  and  I  was  told  that 
I  should  have  the  balance  by  three  o'  clock.  The  hands  waited  until 
four  o'clock,  and  all  quit. 

Question.   If  you  had  had  the  copy  would  you  have  had  it  ready  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  would  have  worked  all  night,  and  had  the 
proofs  on  Monday.  We  would  have  had  it  on  Monday  without 
difficulty. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  You  say  no  member  came  to  the  office  to 
examine  this  testimony  or  get  any  of  it  from  you,  or  ask  for  it  in  the 
printed  form  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  there  was  no  member  of  the  committee  except 
Mr.  Haskin  ;  except  Judge  Hopkins  came  to  me  and  asked  about 
this  correction  on  Saturday  morning. 

Question.  When  Mr.  Haskin  came  and  discovered  this  matter, 
which  he  has  stricken  out  in  the  proof,  what  observation  did  he  make 
to  you  at  the  time  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  remarked,  "This  is  an  awful  blunder  you  have 
made  ;"  or  something  of  that  kind.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  said 
it  was  Mr.  Sheridan  or  me. 

Question  by  Mr.  Haskin.  Did  I  not  say  that  I  had  never  said  what 
I  was  there  reported  as  having  said  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  something  to  that  amount ;  that  you  had  not 
used  such  language,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  Did  he  say  that  he  had  never  made  that 
assertion  ? 

Answer.   I  could  not  swear  positively  ? 

Question  by  Mr.  Haskin.  Was  not  that  the  impression  I  left  on  your 
mind  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  amounted  to  that.  My  impression  was,  that 
you  had  not  said  it ;  that  it  was  a  1)1  under  of  the  reporter. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  Did  Mr.  Haskin  say  to  you,  at  this  time  or 
at  any  other  time,  in  relation  to  this  matter,  that  you  must  not  let 
any  of  the  committee  have  a  copy  of  the  evidence  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not  say  "any  of  the  committee,"  but  that  I 
should  let  no  living  person  have  a  copy  of  it ;  that  it  was  confidential. 

Question.  The  whole  of  the  evidence? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   You  do  not  mean  this  part  particularly? 

Answer.   No,  sir  ;  the  whole  of  the  evidence. 


78  JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

Question  by  Mr.  Haskins.  Was  not  that  said  when  I  first  called  on 
you? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  I  called  on  you  was  not  Mr.  Sheridan  always  along, 
except  on  Friday  last  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir,  always. 

Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Sheridan  was  not  in  town  on  that  day,  and  I 
went  direct  from  the  committee  to  the  printing  office  to  see  about  the 
evidence  and  hurry  it  up. 

Witness.  Whenever  anything  of  this  kind  is  printed  in  advance, 
we  always  consider  it  confidential,  and  no  one,  except  the  chairman 
or  the  person  we  receive  it  from,  is  known  in  the  matter. 
;  Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  You  are  quite  positive  that  the  chair- 
man did  not  say  that  you  must  not  let  any  member  of  the  committee 
or  any  other  person  see  this  part  he  struck  out  ? 

Answer.  He  said,  as  I  have-,  stated,  that  no  person  but  himself 
must  see  copies  of  the  evidence. 

Question.  Did  he  mention  that  no  member  of  the  committee  should 
have  a  copy  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  I  wish  you  to  recollect,  as  well  as  you  can,  and  answer 
the  question  I  am  about  to  ask.  I  wish  you  to  recollect  what  observa- 
tion Mr.  Haskin  made  when  he  struck  out  that  portion  of  his  remarks 
which  have  been  stricken  out,  in  relation  to  its  not  coming  out  in  print  ; 
that  it  must  not  go  out  to  the  world  ;  what  remark  did  he  make  toy-ou  ? 

Answer.  As  I  said  before,  I  think  he  remarked,  "This  is  a  great 
blunder  ;  I  never  said  such  a  thing,"  or  something  of  that  kind.  That 
is  all  I  recollect. 

Question.  Did  not  he  say  that  its  effect  would  be  to  injure  liim  very 
much  ;  that  he  would  be  a  ruined  man  ? 

Answer.  Indeed,  I  do  not  recollect  that.  I  was  very  busy  and  do 
not  recollect  such  a  remark. 

Question.   Have  you  ever  stated  that  to  any  other  party  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  have,  sir. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  Have  you  or  have  you  not  made  that  state- 
ment ? 

Answer.   I  do  not  recollect  ever  having  made  that  statement. 

Question.   Have  you  or  have  you  not? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  have.  I  could  not  speak  positively,  for 
I  spoke  to  Mr.  Wendell  on  the  subject  immediately  after,  and  what  I 
told  liiiri  I  do  not  recollect.      It  was  fresh  in  my  memory  then. 

Question.  This  thing  must  have  made  a  distinct  impression  on  your 
memory  ? 

Answer.   I  think  it  would. 

Question.  Then  you  can  say  whether  you  have  made  that  statement 
or.  not? 

Answ(^r.  1  do  not  think  1  have. 

Question.  I  ask  you  again,    did  you  or  did  you  not? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.   You  swear  you  did  not? 


JOURNAL    OF    THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE.  79 

Answer.  I  would  not  swear  positively,  because  I  might  have  made 
the  remark  at  the  time  and  forgot  it. 

Question.  A  matter  of  this  kind  would  not  be  likely  to  pass  from 
memory,  it  is  a  very  remarkable  speech  to  be  made  ;  if  it  was  made, 
it  was  a  very  remarkable  speech  ;  you  would  have  taken  note  of  it  ? 

Witness.  I  should  think  I  would. 

Mr.  Hall,  continuing.  You  must  have  a  recollection  of  whether  you 
mentioned  this  to  anybody  or  not,  because  it  is  of  immense  impor- 
tance. Xow,  I  want  you  to  recollect  and  answ^er  categorically,  yes 
or  no. 

Witness.  I  cannot  recollect  exactly  that  he  made — I  know  it  was 
some  remark,  but  whether  it  was  that  it  would  ruin  him,  or  was  an 
awful  blunder,  I  cannot  recollect. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  say  to  Wendell  that  Mr.  Haskin  said  in 
your  office  that  anything  in  connexion  with  this  would  ruin  him  ? 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  assert  that  I  never  said  anything  of  the  kind  !  Now,  if 
you  want  to  try  me,  get  an  order  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  did  not  want — (interrupted  by  Mr.  Hopkins.) 

Mr.  Hopkins.  If  in  the  course  of  the  investigations  of  a  committee 
any  questions  arise  affecting  a  member  of  the  committee  they  report 
the  fact  to  the  House.     They  have  the  right  to  inquire — 

Mr.  Hall.   I  do  not  take  it  that  this  is  any  trial. 

Mr.  Haskin.  If  the  committee  want  to  try  me  for  my  conduct  in 
hastening  up  this  affair,  I  would  like  to  examine  some  of  the  members 
of  the  committee. 

Mr.   Wood.   We  are  not  examining  you. 

Mr.  Haskiii.  You  are  trying  to  force  out  of  this  witness,  by  your 
mode  of  inquiry,  a  statement  which  is  by  inference  to  injure  me,  and 
after  he  has  said  that  he  never  made  such  a  statement  and  after  I  have 
denied  ever  having  uttered  it. 

Mr.  Hall  to  witness.  I  ask  you  that  question,  did  you  ever  say  any- 
thing resembling  that? 

Answer.  I  recollect  very  well  that  I  made  a  remark  to  Mr.  Wen- 
doll,  but  what  it  was  just  now  I  cannot  recollect.  It  was  something 
Mr.  Haskin  said.  Mr.  Wendell  came  in  immediately  after  and  I 
showed  him  this  mark,  and  asked  him  whether  I  did  right  in  making 
the  correction,  and  he  said  certainly.  I  thought  he  had  the  right  to 
correct.  I  did  then  give  Mr.  Wendell  a  remark  made  by  Mr.  Haskin 
in  connexion  with  this  erasure,  but  I  do  not  recollect  what  it  was. 
There  were  two  of  us  in  the  room  at  the  time  he  made  it.  I  paid 
little  attention  to  it,  because  I  did  not  imagine  anything  like  this. 

Mr.  Wood.   In  relation  to  the  original  manuscript  ? 

Witness.   I  have  it  all  in  the  office. 

Question.   Together  with  the  Appendix? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  letters  and  all. 

Mr.  Wood.  Before  the  testimony  is  closed,  I  want  the  original 
manuscript  here.  I  have  understood  there  have  been  some  altera- 
tions, and  I  would  like  to  see  what  they  are.  For  instance,  similar 
to  that — 

The  Stenographer.    I  desire   to  state  that  I  have   permitted  no 


80  JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

corrections  to  be  made  in  the  copy  furnished  by  me  unless  they  were 
ordered  by  the  committee.  I  further  wish  to  state  that  the  chairman 
or  no  other  member  of  the  committee  has  ever  desired  me  to  make 
any  corrections  in  the  testimony,  and  that  I  have  never  been  ap- 
proached or  an  attempt  made  to  influence  me  in  the  discharge  of  my 
duty  on  the  committee,  except  by  R.  W.  Latham,  who  complained  to 
me  because  I  would  not  show  him  his  evidence  until  it  was  written 
out.  Mr.  Latham  at  that  time  asked  me  w^hether  I  knew  Governor 
Floyd,  that  he  was  a  man  above  suspicion,  and  that  if  I  knew  him 
Governor  Floyd  would  say  to  me,  "  Old  boy,  what  can  I  do  for  you?'' 
or  something  of  that  sort.  I  have  since  learned  that  Mr.  Latham 
wrote  to  my  nearest  and  best  friend,  Colonel  Forney,  complaining  of 
me  for  I  know  not  what,  except  doing  my  duty  on  this  committee, 
and  tried  to  influence  me  through  him. 

The  Chairman  stated  that  Mr.  Latham  had  had  a  conversation  with 
him,  in  substance  or  effect  similar  to  that  given  by  the  stenographer, 
in  which  he  said  that  Governor  Floyd  would  say  to  him,  if  he  knew 
him,   "What  can  I  do  for  you,  old  fellow. '^ 

Witness  (Mr.  English)  examined  hy  3Ir.  Florence. 

Question.  Did  any  person  get  a  copy  of  the  evidence  from  the 
office  Avithout  yoar  knowledge  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  that  was  impossible.  There  were  but  twelve 
copies  printed,  two  of  which  we  kept  to  revise  and  correct  by,  and 
which  we  have  in  the  office  still. 

Question.  Could  that  revise  have  gotten  into  anybody's  hands 
outside  of  the  office  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Have  you  those  two  copies  still  in  your  possession  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  there  were  no  copies  except  the  ten  furnished  the 
committee  sent  out  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

C.  Wendell,  sworn  : 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  You  knew  nothing  personally  of  the 
changes  which  have  been  made? 

Answer.    Only  through  Mr.  Eiiglisli. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  You  liave  liad  no  directions  from  any  mem- 
ber of  the  committee  as  to  any  alterations  in  the  evidence  ? 

Answer.  I  liave  had  no  instructions  as  to  any  alterations  at  all, 
personally. 

(Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  You  made  preparations  on  Saturday  to 
print  this  evidence  on  Sunday? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   State  wliy  you  did  not? 

Answer.  We  did  not  get  the  entire  copy;  so  I  have  understood 
from  Mr.  English,  who  made  every  arrangement  to  have  it  done  had 
we  had  the  copy  ? 


JOURNAL   OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  81 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  You  are  the  public  printer,  or  doing 
the  business  of  the  public  printer? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir ;  the  business  is  done  at  my  office. 

Question.   Mr.  English  is  your  foreman? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ;  and  in  my  absence  he  is  the  head  man  of  the 
concern. 

Question.  You  have  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  printing  of  this 
evidence  ?  You  were  called  upon  by  the  chairman  to  have  it  printed 
as  rapidly  as  possible? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  That  it  was  desirable  the  committee  should  have  a  copy 
at  an  early  day? 

Answer.  Mr.  Florence,  Judge  Hopkins,  and  Mr.  Haskin  wished 
me  specially  to  crowd  it  as  fast  as  possible,  and  I  so  stated  to  my 
foreman,  Mr.  English. 

Question.   Did  3^ou  tell  him  to  print  it  as  fast  as  possible? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir ;  by  day  or  night. 

Question.  Has  any  conversation  taken  place  between  you  and  your 
foreman  in  relation  to  alterations  in  some  portions  of  the  manuscript 
handed  in? 

Mr.  Haskin.  If  that  question  is  put  with  the  intention  of  affecting 
me,  I  desire  it  to  be  confined  to  when  I  was  present.  I  am  not  to  be 
affected  in  that  manner,  and  I  object  to  the  witness  answering  any 
question  of  that  kind  unless  I  was  present  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Wood.  You  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  I  merely 
asked  the  witness  whether  lie  had  any  conversation  in  regard  to  the 
manuscript  being  altered  after  the  first  impression  was  stricken  off? 

Mr.  Haskin.  If  that  question  is  designed  to  affect  me,  it  is  not  evi- 
dence unless  I  was  present. 

Mr.  Hall.  It  illustrates  what  Mr.  English  said,  that  he  had  some 
conversation  with  Mr.  Wendell  ;  it  might  be  corroborative. 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  shall  raise  an  objection,  if  the  object  of  the  question 
is  to  connect  me  in  any  way  with  this. 

Mr.  Wood.   It  may  come  to  that. 

Mr.  Haskin.  It  may  come  to  that,  because  the  memory  of  man  is 
mighty  uncertain. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  Was  there  any  conversation  between  you 
and  your  foreman,  Mr.  English,  relating  to  the  alteration  of  the 
manuscript  as  first  handed  in? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   And  after  the  first  impressions  were  off? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  not  after  the  first  impressions — the  proof-sheets. 
I  can  better  explain  if  you  will  allow  me  to  state  the  facts.  On 
Saturday,  in  conversation  with  Mr.  Florence,  who  was  the  first  gen- 
tleman who  spoke  to  me,  I  said  I  could  print  it  if  desired  ;  and  I  saw 
Mr.  Haskin  and  Mr.  Sheridan,  and,  as  I  understood,  they  were  to  give 
me  the  copy  that  afternoon,  and  I  was  to  have  it  ready  on  Monday. 
It  run  along  until  Thursday,  before  we  obtained  the  entire  copy. 
The  proof-sheets  were  to  be  examined  by  Mr  Sheridan.  Mr.  English 
called  my  attention  to  sundry  alterations,  and  I  said  of  course,  being 
H.  Pvep.  Com.  549 6 


82  JOURNAL    OF   THE  SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 

under  his  direction,  you  must  make  them,  and  he  did  make  them. 
About  this  time  there  was  the  Secretary  of  War's  statement,  which 
was  very  much  altered,  so  much  so  that  my  attention  was  called  to 
it,  and  I  said  that  it  had  better,  in  my  judgment,  be  entirely  thrown 
aside  and  reset.  The  alterations  in  his  testimony  were  so  extensive 
that,  as  a  matter  of  business,  I  thought  it  would  be  better  to  reset  it 
than  alter  it.  He,  however,  altered  a  portion  and  reset  a  portion^ 
Then  there  was  another  case  in  which  two  lines  or  parts  of  three  lines 
were  altered.     I  said,  of  course,  you  must  do  it. 

Question.   Who  did  he  say  had  altered  them? 

Answer.  I  think  he  said  the  chairman  ;  at  all  events  we  did  not 
look  to  anybody  but  the  chairman  and  the  stenographer  acting  under 
you.  We  pursued  the  directions  as  implicitly  as  we  possibly  could, 
in  getting  the  ten  copies  as  fast  as  we  could.  In  fact,  we  complied 
Avith  all  the  directions  as  far  as  was  in  our  power. 

Question.  (The  lines  struck  out  on  page  305  shown  witness.)  Wa& 
your  attention  called  to  that? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir,  particularly.     I  remember  thot. 

Question.  By  Mr.  English? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  observation  did  he  make  to  you,  when  he  called 
your  attention  to  it,  in  relation  to  the  alteration  ? 

Answer.  I  forget  the  words;  the  idea  was  that  it  was  rather  queer; 
but  he  said  he  supposed  we  would  have  to  do  it. 

Question.  AVliat  did  he  say  was  the  remark  made  by  the  person 
Avho  directed  it  to  be  stricken  out  ? 

Mr.  Haskin.  Have  you  called  this  witness  to  impeach  your  other 
witness,  Mr.  English  ?  You  are  evidently  examining  Mr.  Wendell 
with  the  purpose  of  impeaching  Mr.  English,  and  I  object  to  the 
question. 

Mr.  Hall.  You  cannot  assert  that.  There  has  been  no  attempt  to 
impeach  Mr.  English.  It  is  perfectly  right  to  ask  liim  if  there  was  a 
conversation  between  him  and  Mr.  English  in  relation  to  that. 

Mr.  Wood.  Here  is  an  important  matter,  the  alteration  of  the  origi- 
nal manuscript. 

Mr.  Haskin.  It  is  not  an  alteration  of  tlie  original  manuscript;  it 
is  an  alteration  of  the  proof-sheet. 

Mr.  Wood.  It  is  very  important  evidence;  the  original  manuscript 
shows  different  from  the  proof. 

Mr.  Haskin.  Let  him  answer.  I  want  my  objection  to  the  ques- 
tion entered. 

Witness.  I  do  not  remember  anytliing  special  in  relation  to  it, 
further  than  tlie  idea  conveyed  Avas  that  it  was  queer  to  have  it 
erased. 

Mr.  Haskin.  Tliis  examination  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  evidence 
proper;  and  if  I  was  desirous  of  being  very  teclmical,  I  would  object, 
and  go  to  the  House  to  let  it  dispose  of  this  side  issue  brought  here 
to  divert  attention  from  the  real  object  for  wliicli  the  committee  was 
formed. 


JOURNAL    OF   THE   SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  83 

Mr.  Hall.  Yon  have  already  agreed  to  the  inquiry,  and  waived  all 
objection. 

Mr.  Haskin.  Yes;  but  I  want  it  conducted  fairly,  and  not  have 
questions  put  which  carry  on  their  face  their  answer.  |) 

Mr.  Hall.  That  is  improper,  and  I  will  object  to  all  such  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  Wood  (to  witness.)     What  did  Mr.  English  state? 

Witness.  I  have  answered  it  as  far  as  I  could;  there  was  nothing 
special. 

Question.   Did  Mr.  English  state 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  object  to  the  question  being  put  so  as  to  convey  the 
answer  to  the  witness. 

Question.   Did  he  not  state 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  object  to  that  form  of  the  question.  You  have  no 
right  to  give  the  witness  the  answer  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  According  to  the  practice  in  courts  of  law  in  our 
State,  the  question  in  this  form  is  competent,  "Did  he?''  or  "Did  he 
not?"     That  does  not  suggest  any  answer. 

Mr.  Haskin.  You  may  put  the  question;  I  only  wish  it  understood 
that  you  are  doing  this  Avithout  the  order  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Wood  (to  witness.)  Did  he,  or  did  he  not,  state  to  you  that 
Mr.  Haskin  stated  to  him  that  if  this  was  allowed  to  go  out  to  the 
>vorld  it  would  injure  him  very  much,  and  that  it  must  not  be  allowed 
to  go  out? 

Witness.   No,  sir,  I  do  not  remember  such  a  statement — never. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman. 

Question.   You  are  not  the  public  printer? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.   Who  is? 

Answer.   Mr.  Steedman  w\as  elected  by  the  House.     I  am  de facto. 

Question.  Is  Mr.  Banks  interested  in  it? 

Answer.   He  has  informed  me  that  he  is. 

Question.   Has  he  not  spoken  to  you  in  relation  to  this  evidence? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir,  he  has.     He  has  endeavored  to  obtain  a  copy  of  it. 

Question.   Has  Mr.  Latham  spoken  to  you  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  remember  that  he  has.  I  am  satisfied 
that  he  has  not,  because  our  relations  are  such  that  he  would  not. 

Question.  Has  Governor  Floyd  spoken  to  you  about  the  evidence? 

Answer.   Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  Has  Mr.  A.  Schell? 

Answer.   He  has,  and  asked  me  when  it  would  be  done. 

Question.   Did  any  one  else  speak  to  you  about  it  ? 

Answer.   Mr.  Crosswell  asked  me  when  it  would  be  done. 

Question.   Did  he  desire  to  obtain  a  copy? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir,  and  Schell  too. 

Question.   Who,  beside  these  gentlemen,  spoke  to  you  about  it? 

Answer.  Mr.  Schell,  Mr.  Crosswell  and  Mr.  Banks  spoke  to  me 
about  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  None  of  them  got  copies? 


84  JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 

Answer.  No.  sir.  They  asked  me  when  it  would  be  done,  and 
whether  they  could  have  access  to  it ;  but  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee will  bear  me  out,  that  I  refused  to  give  even  the  members  of 
the  committee  a  cop}',  except  the  chairman. 

Examined  hy  Mr.  Florence. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  publication  of  this  evi- 
dence in  the  New  York  Times  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.   Did  you  see  the  publication? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  how  many  signatures  of  it  were  pub- 
lished in  that  paper  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  do  not,  indeed.  It  must  have  been  published  from 
one  of  the  copies  sent  by  us  to  the  committee,  because  no  others  came 
out,  to  my  knowledge. 

James  En(JLISH  again  appeared  before  the  committee  with  the 
original  manuscript. 

Upon  an  examination  of  the  manuscript,  it  was  found  that  the  affi- 
davit of  Wm.  S.  Alley  had  been  made  to  read  in  the  line  "William 
S.  Alley,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  being  duly  sworn,  says  :  That  in 
or  about  the  month  of  March  1857,"  (see  page  320  testimony,)  by 
erasing  a  ligure  and  substituting  a  figure  "7"  in  the  date  "  1857.'' 

Mr.  Hopkins  stated  that  some  figure  had  evidently  been  erased, 
and  the  figure  "7"  inserted. 

Mr.  Haskin  stated  that  he  had  not  made  any  alteration  in  the 
manuscript,  nor  had  he  noticed  the  erasure  before  ]  that  he  had 
received  the  affidavit  enclosed  in  a  letter  from  Wm.  S.  Alley,  who 
had  been  subpoenaed  to  appear  before  the  committee,  and  had  writ- 
ten and  sent  this  affidavit,  asking  to  be  excused  from  personal  attend- 
ance, as  his  health  would  not  permit  his  coming  to  Washington.  He 
had  laid  the  letter  and  affidavit  before  the  committee,  and  they  had 
ordered  the  affidavit  to  be  appended  to  the  testimony. 

The  stenographer  stated  that  he  had  charge  of  the  affidavit  from 
the  time  it  was  received  by  the  chairman  until  it  was  laid  before  the 
committee,  and  that  after  the  committee  had  ordered  it  to  be  appended 
to  the  testimony,  he  again  took  charge  of  it,  and  it  was  in  his  hands 
luitil  he  gave  it  to  the  printer  ;  that  he  did  not  make  the  erasure  in 
it,  nor  did  any  one  else  whilst  he  had  charge  of  it,  and  that  he  never 
noticed  the  erasure  before. 

Question  by  IMr.  Hopkins  to  Mr.  English.  Do  you  know  how  this 
erasure  and  alteration  was  made  ? 

^Ir.  Englisli.  There  w^as  no  erasure  or  alteration  made  in  the 
manuscript  after  it  came  into  the  hands  of  the  printer  from  the 
stenographer. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  Did  you  examine  the  affidavit  of  Mr. 
AHcy? 

Answer  by  Mr.  Englisli.   No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  alteration? 

Answer.   No,  sir,  I  do  not.     It  was  not  made  in  the  office.     The 


JOUENAL   OF    THE    SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  85 

copy  was  not  examined  by  any  one  except  a  gentleman  during  my 
absence. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.      Did  that  gentleman  wear  spectacles? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir  :  I  was  told  he  did. 

Question.   Who  was  with  him? 

Answer.   I  do  not  know  that  any  one  was  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  That  must  have  been  Augustus  Schell. 

Mr.  Hopkins  laid  the  following  before  the  committee,  which  he 
stated  Senator  Clay  had  received  from  New  York,  who  told  him  that 
he  did  not  know  who  sent  it  to  him,  but  that  he  had  received  it  from 
New  York,  and  it  had  been  addressed  to  him  as  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Commerce  : 


State  of  New  York,  ) 

City  and  County  of  Neio  York,     j 

William  S.  Alley,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  being  duly  sworn,  says: 
That  in  or  about  the  month  of  March,  185G,  he  met  in  the  city  of  New 
York  Frederick  Wissmann,  who  offered  to  sell  deponent  land  for  a 
country  residence  on  Willett's  Point,  on  Long  Island,  New  York; 
that,  after  some  negotiation,  deponent,  at  the  same  interview,  con- 
tracted with  said  Wissmann  to  purchase,  and  he  agreed  with  deponent 
to  sell  him  twenty  acres  of  land,  parcel  of  about  two  hundred  acres 
on  said  Willett's  Point,  at  and  for  the  price  of  five  hundred  dollars 
per  acre  :  deponent  to  have  the  privilege  of  selecting  and  locating 
said  twenty  acres  from  and  on  any  part  of  said  two  hundred  acres, 
except  one  parcel  of  about  fifteen  acres,  upon  which  buildings  had  been 
erected,  which  was  reserved.  Said  Wissmann  then  exhibited  to  depo- 
nent what  Avas  represented  to  be  a  map  of  the  said  two  hundred  acres 
of  land  or  thereabouts,  laid  out  into  lost  or  parcels  of  difterent  sizes; 
and  deponent  and  Wissmann  then  made  and  exchanged  said  notes  or 
contracts  expressing  the  terms  of  their  agreement.  That,  up  to  the 
time  of  said  interview,  deponent  had  never  been  upon  or  examined  the 
said  premises.  That,  soon  after  making  said  agreement  with  Wiss- 
mann, deponent  went  upon  and  examined  the  said  premises  and  then 
saw  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  parcel  upon  which  the  said  build- 
ings were  erected,  the  whole  of  said  premises  was  uncultivated  and 
unimproved,  and  not  such  premises  as  deponent  desired  to  purchase 
for  the  purpose  of  improvement  and  residence.  That,  within  a  short 
time  (say  about  two  weeks)  after  the  making  of  said  agreement,  de- 
ponent again  met  said  Wissmann  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  he 
(Wissmann)  then  stated  to  deponent  that  he  had  an  opportunity  to 
dispose  of  the  whole  of  said  parcel  of  two  hundred  acres  together, 
and  he  would  be  glad  if  deponent  would  surrender  or  cancel  his  said 
contract.  And  thereupon  deponent  and  said  Wissmann  (without  con- 
sideration to  either)  each  surrendered  to  the  other  and  cancelled  the 
said  sale,  notes,  or  contracts,  which  had  been  made  between  them  as 
above  mentioned;  and  that  very  soon  afterwards  (say  within  a  week) 
deponent  was  told  by  a  third  party  that  Wissmann  had  sold  said  par- 
cel of  two  hundred  acres  to  the  general  government  at  a  great  price, 


86  JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 

and  that  deponent  might  have  made  a  large  sum  of  money  (say  $25, 000) 
by  holding  on  to  his  said  purchase. 

WM.  S.  ALLEY. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  before  me,  this  20th  May,  1858. 

A.  D.   W.  BALDWIN, 
Notary  PuhliCj  38  Wall  street,  Neio  York. 

Mr.  Wood  to  Mr.  Hopkins.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  that  came 
with  the  anonymous  letter? 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Yes,  sir ;  and  he  said  that  it  did  not ;  that  it  came 
under  a  separate  cover. 

James  B.  Sheridan,  stenographer  of  the  committee,  examined. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.   When  did  you  return  to  Washington? 

Answer.  On  Sunday  morning. 

Question.  State  what  I  said  to  you  on  your  return  in  relation  to 
this  statement  on  page  305,  which  I  struck  out  ? 

Answer.  You  stated  tliat  during  my  absence,  on  Friday  or  Satur- 
day, you  had  gone  over  to  the  printing  office  to  hurry  them  up,  and 
happening  to  pick  up  a  piece  of  the  evidence,  that  this  statement 
had  caught  your  eye  ;  that  you  had  never  made  it,  and  Avas  astonished 
to  see  it  there,  and  did  not  believe  that  I  had  ever  written  it,  but 
thought  that  it  had  been  interpolated  by  some  one  at  the  office.  I 
examined  it,  and  said  that  I  did  not  remember  of  your  ever  having 
said  it,  or  my  having  written  it,  but  that  I  remember  your  saying  at 
that  time  that  you  were  perfectly  satisfied  with  Mr.  Augustus  Schell's 
examination. 

Question.  State  what  your  habit  has  been  in  writing  out  any 
remarks  made  by  me  ? 

Answer.  You  desired  me,  in  writing  out  your  remarks,  to  make  them 
read  smoothly,  and  I  have  frequently  remodelled  sentences  and  cor- 
rected what  you  have  said,  with  more  freedom  than  I  otherwise  would 
have  done. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  Have  you  made  a  correct  report  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  committee? 

Answer.  I  have,  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  In  writing  out  the 
remarks  of  the  chairman,  I  did  not  confine  myself  so  closely  to  my 
notes  as  in  writing  out  other  parts  of  the  proceedings,  and,  therefore, 
I  am  afraid  that,  in  this  instance,  I  may  have  represented  him  as  saying- 
more  than  he  really  did. 

Question.  Under  that  direction  of  the  chairman,  have  you  reported 
it  as  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  committee? 

Answer.  I  wrote  it  out,  and  I  suppose  1  did  it  IVom  my  notes,  in 
the  manner  I  have  state<l. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  submit  it  to  me,  or  did  I 
ever  see  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  Mr.  IIo[)kins.  Are  you  sure  that  Mr.  Wood's  remarki 
are  reported  correctly? 


JOURNAL    OF   THE    SPECIAL    COMMITTEE.  87 

Answer.  To  the  best  of  my  belief,  they  are  reported  correctly. 

Question.  The  reports  of  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Florence  and  Mr. 
Wood  are  correct  transcripts  from  your  phonographic  notes  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  is  my  belief  that  they  are. 

Question.  Are  you  more  sure  of  the  correctness  of  the  reports  of 
the  remarks  of  those  two  gentlemen  than  of  your  report  of  the 
remarks  of  Mr.  Haskin  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir.  • 

Question.   For  what  reason  ? 

Answer.  For  the  reason  I  have  stated. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  Are  you  Mr.  Haskin' s  clerk  or  secretary? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  Did  the  chairman  ever  authorize  you 
to  change  the  sense  of  what  he  said  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  Did  you  not  know,  from  conversations  with 
him,  or  remarks  you  have  been  accustomed  to  hear  him  make,  that 
his  theory  or  idea  was  different  from  his  remarks  as  printed  here  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir  ;  entirely  different. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Was  it  not  after  the  statement  was 
given  to  the  Senate  that  my  report  was  prepared,  and  did  I  not  come 
to  my  conclusions  from  reading  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Cryder,  which 
w^as  given  subsequently,  and  comparing  other  evidence  bearing  upon 
Mr.  Schell? 

Answer.   You  wrote  your  report  after  the  statement  was  given. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  You  are  asked  by  Mr.  Mai  why,  with  your 
knowledge  of  Mr.  Haskins'  theory  in  relation  to  Mr.  Schell,  you  by 
your  report  put  into  the  chairman's  mouth  language  that  he  has  never 
used.     You  have  not  answered  that  question  ;  will  you  do  so  now  ? 

Answer.  Nor  can  I  answer  it. 

Question.  Did  you  report  Mr.  Haskin  from  your  notes  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  report  the  language  of  Mr.  Haskin  from  your 
stenographic  notes,  and  is  it  consistent  with  your  stenographic  notes 
as  taken  down  at  the  time  ? 

Answer.  If  I  had  m}^  notes  here  I  could  tell,  but  they  have  been 
mislaid,  and  I  have  been  trying  to  find  them,  but  cannot.  In  moving, 
a  day  or  two  ago,  the  things  got  all  mixed  up,  and  I  cannot  find  them. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  this  to  be  a  faithful  report  of  what  he  said? 

Answer.  I  believe  it  to  be  a  true  statement,  under  the  qualifications 
I  have  before  stated. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  During  the  time  you  have  been  the 
stenographer  of  this  committee,  have  I  ever  asked  you  to  give  any 
coloring  to  the  testimony  contrary  to  the  statements  of  witnesses? 

Answer.   No,  sir,  never. 

Two  communications — one  over  the  signature  of  J.  B.  Haskin  and 
the  other  without  signature — were  submitted  by  Mr.  Hopkins,  and 
the  following  questions  were  propounded  to  the  witness  : 


88  JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL   COMMITTEE. 

Question.   Are  those  in  your  handwriting  ? 

Answer.   They  are. 

Question.   By  whose  direction  did  you  write  them  ? 

Answer.   By  the  direction  of  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Haskin  stated  that  the  unsigned  communication  was  written 
by  request  of  a  senator,  and  handed  by  him  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Sickles 
by  his  request. 

3Ir.  Hopkins.  Now,  we  are  to  report  our  proceedings  to  the  House, 
and  the  question  arises  as  to  this  disputed  paragraph, 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  make  this  proposition,  which  no  member  of  any 
committee  can,  with  propriety  gainsay,  that  no  member  of  the  com- 
mittee has  the  right  to  put  into  my  mouth  a  statement  which,  before 
the  testimony  is  published,  I  see  fit  to  correct.  So  far  as  this  cor- 
rection is  concerned,  it  was  made  by  me  openly  and  above  board.  1 
proclaimed  at  the  time  that  I  had  made  no  such  statement,  and  I  insist 
that  no  member  has  the  right  now  to  put  it  into  my  mouth.  If  the 
remark  was  made — and  how  it  could  have  been  made  I  cannot  imagine, 
as  it  was  directly  in  opposition  to  my  theory  of  the  conduct  of  Au- 
gustus Schell  in  this  transaction — it  must  have  been  made  sarcastically 
or  ironically.  However,  even  if  I  said  what  I  am  there  represented 
as  saying,  I  do  not  commit  myself,  because  some  of  the  strongest 
evidence  against  Mr.  Schell  has  been  taken  since  that  time.  Various 
members  of  the  committee  have  exercised  their  discretion  in  keeping 
in  or  striking  out  remarks  made  by  them  during  the  progress  of  this 
investigation.  Mr.  Hopkins  struck  out  of  the  report  a  whole  personal 
statement  made  by  himself.  I  did  not  object  then,  nor  do  I  now ;  but 
I  claim  the  same  privilege  exercised  by  other  members,  and  extended 
to  the  witnesses,  several  of  whom  have  revised  and  corrected  their 
testimony  as  given  before  this  committee.  Governor  Floyd  made 
several  very  material  changes  in  his  statements,  as  reported  by  the 
stenographer  ;  and  Mr.  Latham,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  and  George 
Irving,  also  made  changes.  I  wish  to  be  right  upon  the  record  in  this 
matter,  and  I  cannot  be  right  if  this  statement  is  allowed  to  remain 
here,  in  opposition  to  my  whole  theory  of  the  case  and  my  opinions 
in  relation  to  Mr.  Augustus  SchelFs  connexion  with  the  transaction, 
which  are  expressed  in  my  communication  to  Senator  Clay.  This 
is  my  statement.  It  is  for  the  committee  to  decide  whether  or  not 
I  am  to  be  misrepresented  upon  the  record  of  our  proceedings,  and  I 
wish  them  to  remember  that  their  action  in  this  matter  goes  upon 
the  record. 

Mr.  Wood.  Tlie  chairman  seems  to  think  that  a  member  of  the 
committee  desires  to  put  words  in  his  mouth.  Now,  I  suppose  that 
applies  to  me.  In  all  tliat  I  have  said  I  have  disclaimed  that  often, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  which  goes  to  show  that  I  tried  to  do  it.  I 
merely  followed  the  record  as  made  by  the  stenographer,  our  clerk. 
I  have  followed  it  so  far  as  the  remarks  I  have  made,  and  in  regard 
to  the  remarks  made  by  the  chairman.  I  have,  at  different  times, 
objected  to  having  remarks  or  any  portion  of  the  evidence  stricken 
out.  In  one  case,  when  Mr.  Florence  proposed  to  strike  out  portions 
of  a  debate  or  discussion  of  the  committee,  I  objected  to  it,  and  I  did 


JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  S9 

SO  because  I  thought  that  this,  in  connexion  with  the  evidence,  would 
enable  the  public  to  judge  as  to  how  our  business  was  conducted,  and 
the  evidence  elicited,  and  the  remarks  made  by  different  parties.  I 
think  the  chairman  should  alter  that,  in  regard  to  any  one  desiring  to 
put  evidence  in  his  mouth. 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  assert  that  I  could  not  have  made  any  such  state- 
ment, because  it  does  not  agree  with  my  deliberate  judgment,  my 
understanding,  or  theory  of  the  case.  I  say  that  I  believe  this  whole 
question  about  my  altering  the  record  has  been  gotten  up  by  Mr. 
Augustus  Schell  and  his  friends  for  the  purpose  of  diverting  public 
attention  from  their  connexion  with  this  transaction,  this  swindling 
operation.  It  is  like  the  cry  of  "stop  thief!"  from  the  pickpocket, 
or  the  cry  of  ' '  fire  !' '  from  the  incendiary. 

Mr.  Wood.   I  have  only  reference  to  Avhat  the  record  shows. 

Mr.  Haskin.  You  must  understand  that  the  record  is  never  com- 
plete until  it  is  correct.  It  was  not  considered  so  in  the  case  of  Gov. 
Floyd,  Mr.  Latham,  or  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  who  were  allowed  to 
make  material  alterations  in  their  testimony.  We  have  given  the 
privilege,  which  I  never  heard  refused,  to  witnesses  to  make  correc- 
tions in  their  statements  bearing  upon  the  facts ;  but  in  this  case  of 
mine  there  is  an  evident  wish  to  make  me  live  up  to  a  remark,  as  re- 
ported, which  I  have  over  and  over  again  said  I  never  uttered,  and 
to  convey  the  impression  that  I  must  be  controlled  by  it. 

Mr.  Wood.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Haskin.  This  morning  I  observed  a  tenacity  of  purpose  in  the 
questions  which  were  put  to  Mr.  English  ;  which  questions  certainly 
could  not  have  originated  Avith  you  [Mr.  Wood  ;]  they  must  have 
originated  in  some  other  brain.  The  evident  design  was  to  connect 
me  with  that  alteration  in  a  way  which  would  induce  the  public  to 
believe  that  1  had  acted  nefariously  in  the  transaction,  and  that  I  had 
proclaimed  that  this  alteration  would,  if  published,  ruin  me.  That 
is  a  pure  invention.  I  never  stated  anything  of  the  kind,  and  could 
not  have  so  stated,  because,  when  I  saw  it,  I  said  openly  that  it  was 
a  blunder  ;  that  I  had  never  uttered  any  such  thing,  and  that  I  would 
strike  it  out.  1  did  not  strike  it  out  of  the  original  manuscript,  but 
out  of  the  proof-sheet,  and  there  w^as  no  secrecy  about  it  on  my 
part,  for  as  soon  as  Mr.  Sheridan  returned  on  Sunday,  I  saw  him 
and  told  him  that  there  was  a  blunder  ;  that  I  had  never  made  such 
a  statement,  and  that,  by  the  mistake,  I  was  placed  in  a  false  light 
in  reference  to  this  transaction,  so  far  as  Mr.  Schell  was  concerned. 
When  this  subject  was  mentioned,  with  the  frankness  which,  I  think, 
the  committee  will  give  me  credit  for  possessing,  I  immediately 
avowed  what  I  had  done  in  the  matter,  and  asked  the  examination  of 
the  committee.  I  am  now  willing  that  the  subject  shall  come  into 
the  House,  if  necessary  ;  because,  so  far  as  1  am  concerned,  I  will 
let  my  conduct,  as  shown  in  the  proceedings  of  the  committee  and  in 
my  rei)ort,  speak  for  itself,  and  take  all  the  consequences.  But  it  is 
evident  to  me,  from  the  tenacity  of  purpose  with  which  questions 
were  put  and  answers  demanded  from  Mr.  English  and  Mr.  Wendell, 
that  there  is  a  design  here  to  put  me  in  a  false  position  before  the 


i^O  JOURNAL    OF   THE   SPECIAL   COMMITTEE 

House  and  the  country  on  this  subject.  If  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
committee  to  try  me,  I  am  ready,  and  they  can  get  an  order  from  the 
House.  I  have  nothing  to  conceal,  and  am  willing  to  allow  the  whole 
affair  to  be  published  and  passed  upon  by  the  House. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  w^ill  reply  to  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Haskin.  Permit  me  to  ask  you  who  requested  you  to  elicit 
these  facts? 

Mr.  Wood.  I  am  going  on  to  state.  You  have  stated  that  the 
manner  in  which  the  question  was  put  to  Mr.  English  showed,  as 
you  believed,  that  the  question  did  not  originate  with  me,  or,  rather, 
in  my  brain.  More  than  once  during  the  investigations  of  this  com- 
mittee, the  chairman  has  told  me  to  my  face,  and  in  the  presence  of 
others,  that  I  did  not  understand  the  evidence  ;  and  in  my  presence 
I  have  heard  him  tell  another  member  that  he  did  not  understand  it. 
The  chairman  seemed  to  have  the  idea  that  he  constituted  the  whole 
intellect  and  talent  of  the  committee,  and  that  he  was  the  only 
member  of  the  committee  who  comprehended  what  had  been  given 
in  evidence  before  the  committee.  This  morning  he  states  that  the 
questions  I  put  to  witnesses  did  not  originate  in  my  brain. 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  mean  the  suggestion  which  induced  you  to  put  the 
question.  Of  course,  the  questions  were  yours,  but  the  idea  which 
suggested  them  came  from  some  third  parties. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  suppose  the  ideas  originating  in  any  man's  brain 
come  from  statements  or  facts  which  he  may  have  elicited  or  gathered 
from  some  other  circumstances.  Without  some  point  to  start  from, 
or  object  to  be  pursued,  nothing  would  originate  in  a  person's  brain. 
If  the  chairman  disclaims  having  made  this  statement^ 

Mr.  Haskin.  You  are  laboring  under  a  misapprehension.  I  stated, 
and  this  was  before  the  evidence  had  been  written  out,  that  there 
were  portions  of  the  evidence  which  you  did  not  understand,  because 
you  had  been  absent  during  a  great  number  of  the  meetings  of  the 
committee,  and  had  not  had  an  opportunity  of  either  hearing  it  or 
reading  it.  My  purpose,  and  I  meant  it  to  be  so  understood,  although 
you  may  have  misunderstood  me,  was  to  convey  the  idea  tliat  so  far 
as  concerned  the  evidence  which  you  had  not  heard  or  read,  you  did 
not  understand  it ;  but  for  me  to  have  asserted  that  you  did  not  un- 
derstand the  evidence  which  you  had  heard  or  read,  would  have  been 
an  insult  to  your  intelligence.  It  would  have  been  an  insult  for  me 
to  have  made  such  a  proposition.  I  therefore  now  disclaim  ever  having 
intended  in  any  manner  to  assert  that  you  did  not  understand  such 
evidence  as  had  been  taken  while  you  were  present  in  the  committee. 
I  have  made  the  same  remark  to  Mr.  Florence  and  other  members  of 
the  committee,  and  all  I  meant  to  convey  by  it  was  the  idea  that 
there  were  ))orti()iis  of  the  evidence  with  which  they  were  not  familiar, 
not  having  been  present  when  it  was  taken.  I  did  not  consider  them 
so  well  posted  as  to  the  facts  as  myself,  for  I  have  been  present  at 
every  meeting  of  the  committee,  and  examined  the  witnesses,  but  I 
never  designed  charging  to  them  a  want  of  intellec;tual  f)Ower  to  com- 
prehend the  evidence.  To  understand  it  otherwise  is,  in  my  opinion, 
absurd. 


JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL   COMMITTEE.  91 

Mr.  Wood.  Upon  one  occasion,  in  Mr.  HalFs  room,  at  Willard's 
Hotel,  when  there  was  a  member  present,  you  made  the  assertion 
that  I  did  not  understand  the  evidence.  I  waited  for  a  moment  to 
see  if  any  qualification  would  be  made,  and  I  then  took  occasion, 
during  a  lapse  in  the  conversation,  to  remind  you  that  I  desired  to 
brush  up  my  intellect  or  memory,  and  to  try  and  understand  the  evi- 
dence. You  then  qualified  your  remark,  by  saying  that  you  meant 
the  evidence  which  was  taken  when  I  was  absent. 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  could  not  have  meant  anything  else. 

Mr.  Wood.  There  was  another  member  present  sitting  by  at  that 
time. 

Mr.  Haskin.   Who  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Wood.  Mr.  Comins. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  I  desire  to  call  up  the  question  as  to  what  is  the  true 
report  of  our  proceedings  as  to  the  fact  which  has  been  the  subject 
of  discussion.  The  chairman  has  referred  to  a  correction  of  a  per- 
sonal explanation  which  he  (Mr.  Hopkins)  had  made  before  the  com- 
mittee. He  had  said,  w^hen  he  first  saw  it,  that,  in  his  opinion,  it 
formed  no  part  of  the  proceedings,  and  ought  not  to  have  been  quo- 
ted. The  correction  of  that  statement  of  one  or  two  immaterial  facts 
was  made  by  the  clerk  at  his  suggestion  in  the  room  of  Mr.  Hall,  and 
in  the  presence  of  the  committee.  The  chairman  has  repeatedly  said 
that  the  change  which  he  made  w'as  made  publicly  and  above  board. 
The  fact  is  conceded  to  be  true,  that  the  alteration  in  controversy  was 
made  at  the  printing  office,  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  any 
other  member  of  the  committee  except  himself,  whilst  the  other  al- 
terations referred  to  by  the  chairman,  of  Gov.  Floyd  and  others,  were 
made  in  committee,  and  with  its  consent.  I  will  further  state, 
as  I  have  done  before,  that  I  was  not  present  at  the  time  that  this 
thing  occurred,  and  have  therefore  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  fact. 
In  the  manuscript  the  clerk,  whose  duty  it  was  to  report  our  proceed- 
ings, and  Avho  has  this  day  sworn  that  he  has  reported  them  to  the 
best  of  his  ability,  the  clause  w^hich  was  stricken  out  appears,  and  I 
must  regard  his  manuscript  as  furnishing  a  true  record  of  our  pro- 
ceedings. 

Mr.  Haskin.  Then  let  the  evidence  of  Governor  Floyd  be  reported 
to  the  House  as  it  was  taken  down  by  the  stenographer.  I  am  op- 
posed to  making  fish  of  one  and  fowl  of  another.  His  evidence  was 
correctly  reported,  and  he  made  a  number  of  material  changes  in  it 
which  were  allowed,  and  here  is  a  statement  attributed  to  me  which 
I  disavow  ever  having  made,  and  yet  it  is  to  be  published,  notwith- 
standing. 1  will  agree  that  Governor  Floyd's  evidence  shall  be  re- 
ported to  the  House  as  it  was  corrected  by  him,  and  that  my  state- 
ment shall  be  reported  as  corrected  by  me,  letting  the  journal  show 
all  that  has  taken  place  upon  this  subject — the  alteration  of  my 
statement  as  well  as  the  alteration  of  Governor  Floyd's  testimony. 

After  a  short  conversation,  the  chairman  consented  to  a  proposi- 
tion of  Mr.  Hall,  that  the  statement  stricken  out  by  him  should  be 
retained  and  published  in  brackets,  with  a  note  from  him  in  denial, 
calling  attention  to  his  explanation  in  the  journal. 


92  JOURNAL   OF   THE   SPECIAL    COMMITTEE. 

The  committee,  after  certifying  the  account  for  services  ofj^their 
stenograplier,  adjourned  without  day. 

JAS.  B.  SHERIDAN, 
Stenographer  Committee. 


INDEX, 


Page. 

Report  of  Hon.  John  B.  Haskin..  1 

Report  of  Hon.  Geo.  W.  Hopkins. .  23 

Report  of  Hon.  John  M.  Wood...  37 

Report  of  Hon.  Robert  B.  Hall...  46 

Journal  of  committee . 48 

TESTIMONY. 

Hon.  John  B.  Floyd 97 

Capt.  H.  G.  Wright 108,321 

Q.  A.  Gilmore 108 

I.  V.  Fowler 110 

R.  Schell 115,128 

T.  B.  Blcecker 140 

A.  J.  Bleecker 142 

G.  V.  Lott 145 

J.  D.  Williamson 146 

F.  Wissmann 149 

P.  M.  Wctmorc 156 

J.  Cole 170 

J.  C.  Mather 172 

Gen.  Joseph  G.  Totten 184 

Graham  Policy 188 

George  Irving 189,206 

W.  R.  Drinkard 210 

J.  S.  Black 215 

R.  H.  Gillett 219 

A.  H.  Micklc 223 

A.  Schell 227 

W.  C.  Wetmorc 230,236 

J.  McKeon 242 

D.  Van  Nostrand 245 


Page 

G.  Hicks 253 

W.  H.  Wilkins 254 

A.  J.  Silliman 256 

Charles  A.  Willctt 259 

William  Turner 264 

C.  P.  Lowerec --  264 

S.  Draper 265 

T.  S.  Draper 267 

Major  J.  G.  Barnard 269 

H.Day 274 

J.  Russell 275 

C.  F.  Van  Blankensteyn 276 

Col.  J.  L.  Smith... 280 

H.  W.  Benham 282 

J.  W.  Lawrence 285 

R.  W.  Latham 288,297 

H.Cobb 301 

E.  Croswell 304 

P.  J.  Joachimscn 306 

G.  Frings 311 

John  Cryder. . 313 

H.  Grinnell 317 

James  B.  Sheridan 86,319 


W.  8.  Alley 

Hon.  John  A.  Scarin 
¥a\.  W.  Ltiwrence ... 

H.  H.  Hover 

Wm.  Weeks 

James  English 

C.  Wendell 

Appendix ...... 


320 
324 
327 
330 
334 
74 
80 
340 


TESTIMONY. 


Friday,  Fehruary  25,  1858. 
The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 
Present — All  the  members. 

Hon.  JoHX  B.  Floyd  appeared,  and  was  examined  by  the  chairman, 
(Hon.  J.  B.  Haskin,)  as  follows  : 

Question.  Will  you  please  state  to  the  committee  the  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  the  purchase  of  the  Wilkins's  Point  pro- 
perty by  the  government  ?  When  the  negotiations  for  the  purchase 
were  entered  into,  by  whom  they  were  made,  and  to  whom  the  $115,000 
was  paid  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not  know  distinctly  when  the  negotiations  commenced. 
The  papers  which  the  committee  desired  me  to  bring,  I  have  with  me, 
and  they  indicate  the  progress  of  the  transaction.  It  was  carried  on 
by  the  engineer  department,  without  any  knowledge  of  mine,  until  it 
became  necessary  that  I  should  be  consulted  about  it.  I  was  looking 
over  the  papers  last  night,  and  I  find  among  them  a  good  many 
papers  that  I  never  saw  before;  they  are  papers  which  do  not  in  any 
l)articular  change  the  transaction,  although  in  some  degree  they  modify 
the  facts  that  were  known  to  me.  The  first  I  remember  about  the 
matter  is,  Gen.  Totten  coming  to  me  and  saying  that  it  was  necessary 
to  purchase  this  property  ;  that  an  a])propriation  had  been  made  for  the 
purpose  by  Congress  ;  it  was  a  work  of  importance,  and  that  the  pro- 
perty ought  to  be  purchased.  That  was  somewhere  about  the  middle 
of  March.  It  did  not  arrest  my  attention  very  much  at  the  time,  I 
being  new  liere.  The  first  thing  which  drew  my  special  attention  to 
it  was  a  communication  late  one  evening,  as  I  was  about  quitting  my 
ofiice,  from  some  member  of  the  engineer  department — I  am  not  cer- 
tain who  it  was — stating  that  it  was  necessary  to  send  by  telegraph  a 
large  amount  of  money  to  New  York  for  the  purchase  of  this  property. 
1  declined  to  do  it,  for  it  was  a  thing  I  had  never  consulted  the  Cabinet 
about  at  all,  and  was  my  first  money  transaction  of  this  sort,  and  I  was 
not  inclined  to  be  in  a  hurry  about  it.  In  the  course  of  a  few  days,  how- 
ever, the  subject  of  this  purchase  was  brought  before  the  Cabinet  and 
discussed.  1  cannot,  of  course,  fix  dat'-s,  because  I  paid  no  more  atten- 
tion to  this  than  any  other  important  transaction  of  the  department  ;  , 
but  about  this  time  there  came  a  formal  proposition,  which  was  the 
first  incident  in  the  transaction  which  called  specially  lor  my  ofiicial 
action,  ofi'ering  to  sell  this  property  to  the  United  States  government 
for  §200,000,  upon  specific  terms.  Well,  this  proposition  was  dis-- 
cussed. 

Question.   When  was  the  proposition  made? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.     You  will  find   it  in  the  papers.     There- 
was  a  good  deal  of  correspondence  between  the  engineer  in  charge  and 
the  engineer-in-chief  upon  the  subject  of  this  property  which  I  was  not 

H.  Pvep.  Com.  549 7 


98  TESTIMONY. 

aware  of  until  I  got  the  $200,000  proposition.  This  price  struck  me 
as  inordinate.  I  would  not  enter  into  a  transaction  of  that  magnitude 
without  consulting  the  Cabinet  about  it.  I  took  the  papers  to  the 
Cabinet,  and  talked  the  whole  thing  over  fully.  We  read  the  papers, 
such  as  were  then  before  me,  from  the  engineer's  department.  It  was 
very  obvious,  from  the  papers  referred  to,  that  in  the  course  of  a  few 
days  after  the  appropriation  for  the  construction  of  the  fort,  specula- 
tors had  got  to  work  to  possess  themselves  of  the  site,  and  it  was  a 
struggle  between  them  and  our  engineers  there  who  should  get  hold 
of  the  property.  At  all  events,  it  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  third 
parties  beibre  the  time  for  any  definite  action  arrived,  and  the  ques- 
tion presented  to  us  was  as  to  the  lowest  price  for  which  the  property 
could  then  be  purchased. 

Question.  To  whom  was  this  $115,000  paid? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  The  subject  was  under  discussion  several 
times,  and  at  last  it  was  agreed  to  send  to  New  York  and  ascertain 
what  would  be  a  fair  price  of  the  property.  I  call  your  attention  to 
a  paper  on  that  subject,  which  was  before  the  Cabinet  on  the  occa- 
sions when  we  discussed  the  subject.  It  is  a  letter  dated  March  24, 
1857  ;  and  the  dates  deserve  attention,  as  you  will  perceive.  It  reads 
as  follows : 

[Confidential.] 

U.  S.  Engineer's  Office, 

Neio  York,  March  24,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  shall  go  to-morrow  (if  the  weather  permits)  to  examine, 
thoroughly,  the  different  sites  proposed  for  the  works  on  Long  Island. 
I  intended  to  defer  any  communication  until  I  had  done  so  ;  but 
that  some  doubt  has  been  thrown  upon  the  practicability  of  getting  the 
cession  of  jurisdiction  v  ithout  an  indication  of  the  locality,  the  im- 
portance of  bringing  negotiations  to  a  close,  induce  me  to  anticipate 
my  visit,  as  I  believe  the  main  })oints  I  have  to  communicate  and  the 
authority  I  shall  have  to  ask,  will  not  be  materially  altered  by  my 
Tisit. 

I  will  describe  the  two  locations  which  can,  under  existing  circum- 
stances, be  considered. 

WUkins's  Point  is  well  known  to  the  department.  It  was  bought  a 
few  years  since  by  Mr.  Weissman_,  for  what  price  I  have  been  unable 
to  ascertain  ;  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  about  $50,000  or  $60,000. 

It  consisted  (nominally)  of  153  acres,  (the  old  surveys  are  said  to  be 
very  inaccurate,  and  it  is  thought  the  true  area  would  overrun  this.) 
Of  this  he  has  sold  twenty-six  acres  to  Mr.  Henry  Day,  and  sixteen 
lie  south  of  the  marsh  and  creek  which  limits  the  neck  i)roper,  leaving 
111  of  the  point  or  neck  still  in  his  possession,  and  twenty-six  in  the 
possession  of  Mr.  Day. 

On  the  land  renuiining  in  Mr.  Weissman's  possession,  a  building 
(dwelling  house  and  appurtenances)  has  been  erected  of  no  great  value. 
Mr.  Day  has  expended  a  small  sum  upon  his  grounds,  but  has  not  yet 
commenced  building. 

Mr.  Weissman's  pro[)osition  is  to  sell  to  the  United  States  at  $1 ,000 
per  acre,  an  actual  a7id  correct  survey  being  made,  and,  in  addition,  to 
receive  $15^ 000 /or  his  improvements. 


TESTIMONY.  99 

Mr.  Day's  proposition  is  found  in  the  accompanying  letter,  which, 
having  read  and  noted,  I  beg  you  will  return. 
So  much  for  Wilkins's  Point 

Near  the  position  laid  down  on  the  sketch  sent  me  of  Old  Fort,  that 
is  to  the  east  of  and  on  the  very  salient  of  that  promontory  towards  Fort 
Schuyler  and  Wilkins's  Point,  Mr.  John  Oryder  has  a  country  seat 
consisting  of  seventy-four  acres  of  land,  with  costly  dwelling  and  out- 
houses. The  tracing  herewith  will  show  the  configuration  of  the  tract. 
Adjoining  him,  to  the  east  and  south,  is  another  fine  country  seat  of 
Stewart  Brown,  (Brown,  Brothers,  &  Co.,)  of  thirty-five  acres  and 
dwellings. 

Mr.  (Jryder,  while  professing  no  desire  to  sell,  expresses  a  patriotic 
willingness  to  give  up  his  place  to  the  public  service,  if  wanted;  and 
he  professes  to  desire  nothing  beyond  a  reimbursement. 

He  estimates  his  land  at  $1,000  per  acre  ;  and,  after  examining  liis 
books,  he  says,  his  residence  (dwellings,  &c.)  has  cost  him  |40,000. 
On  this  basis,  $114,000  would  be  the  amount  he  thinks  he  ought  to 
receive. 

But  Mr.  Brown  says  a  construction  of  a  fortification  on  Mr.  Cry- 
der's  place  would  completely  ruin  his,  and  he  thinks  his  place  ought 
to  be  taken  with  Cryder's,  and  at  the  same  rate,  $1,000  for  land,  and 
$30,000  for  his  improvements,  as  he  estimates  them. 

This  would  give  us  an  ample,  and  not  ineligible  site  of  139  acres, 
and  cost  us  $179,000. 

To  the  westward  of  Mr.  Cryder,  towards  Old  Fort,  I  cannot  now 
give  you  the  different  proprietors.  But  the  land  would  be  held  at 
least  as  high.  There  are,  however,  I  believe,  no  such  costly  improve- 
ments  as  Cryder  s  and  Brown's. 

But  these  gentlemen  would  think  themselves  heavily  damaged  (and 
they  would  be)  by  our  ()Ccu[)ation  of  this  adjacent  land. 

At  Whitestone's  Point  the  tracts  are  small.  On  the  hay  pointy  Mr. 
Grinnell  owns  ten  acres  unimproved^  for  which  he  asks  $30,000. 
(This  is  not  a  price  made  for  the  United  States,  but  one  he  has  held 
the  land  at.) 

There  are  several  small  tracts  on  each  side.  All  would  be  held  at 
such  rates  as  I  have  above  described. 

Wilkins's  Point  is  far  the  most  eligible  site,  and  it  is  the  cheapest. 
Fortunately,  no  improvement  of  value  has  been  made  upon  it ;  but 
without  further  authority  1  am  unable  to  do  anything  that  will  alter 
the  aspect  of  things  as  I  now  present  them. 

You  see  how  high  lands  are  actually  held  all  along  the  shore,  Kow, 
the  testimony  of  the  residents  is  that  Wilkins's  Point  is  really  un- 
rivalled for  the  objects  which  give  these  lands  such  value,  viz  :  for 
country  seats  for  the  wealthy.  That  it  has  not  been  so  occupied  before, 
is  owirjg,  in  great  degree,  to  the  latent  intention  of  the  United  States 
to  occupy  it.  The  present  owner,  Mr.  Weissman,  expects  to  sell  to  the 
United  ^^tates,  wants  to  sell,  and  the  sole  question  with  him  is,  to  get 
the  highest  possible  price.  Mr.  Day  bought  expressly  for  a  country 
seat,  and  is,  1  believe,  really  reluctant  to  give  up  his  purchase. 

Now,  while  Mr.  Weissman  has  not  been  particularly  the  sufferer  by 
the  interdict  which  the  government  has  put  on  this  point,  yet  we 


100  TESTIMONY. 

ought  to  bear  in  mind  what  his  land  wonkl   really  he  luortli  to  him, 
were  that  interdict  removed  by  a  purchase  of  site  elsewhere. 

The  price  at  which  Cryder,  and  Brown,  (whose  character  and  wealth 
places  them  above  suspicion  of  speculative  objects,)  and  Grinnell  hold 
their  tracts  show  that  good  locations  are  really  worth  $1,000  per  acre, 
while  very  small  choice  tracts  are  held  much  higher,  and  in  this  I  am 
confirmed  by  the  residents  of  the  neighborhood.  I  asked  Mr.  Law- 
rence, a  merchant  of  the  city,  who  lias  a  place  at  the  head  of  Little 
Neck  Bay,  (a  mile  or  two  distant,)  what  he  would  appraise  Mr.  Weiss- 
man's  tract  at  if  he  were  made  an  arbitrator.  He  answered,  "a  thou- 
sand dollars  an  acre,"  he  thought,  would  be  a  liberal  and  proper 
compensation. 

But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  tract  of  111  acres  is  not  easily 
sold  out  (good,  bad,  and  indifferent)  at  $1,000  per  acre.  Some  of  it 
is  marsh  land,  and,  although  Mr.  W id\^^\\vd.\\  jjrof esses  to  believe  that 
it  would  be  an  advantage  to  him  if  the  government  would  at  once 
decide  not  to  take  his  land,  I  believe,  if  it  dia  not,  he  could  not  realize, 
either  by  present  sale  of  the  whole,  or  by  partial  or  successive  sales, 
or  by  holding  the  whole  longer,  what  would  be  worth  to  him  the 
present  sum  nz  cash  of  $100,000.  The  dwelling  is  said  to  be  of  little 
value,  and  though  he  says  he  has  actually  expended  $11,000  on  the 
house,  I  don't  think  a  man  ought  to  expect  to  get  back  every  cent  he 
has  spent  on  a  sorry  house,  (his  own  dwelling.) 

I  request,  therefore,  authority  to  tender  Mr.  Weissman  $100,000  for 
the  111  (more  or  less)  acres  he  owns  beyond  the  creek;  or,  if  he  posi- 
tively declines  this,  to  have  authority  to  offer  from  $750  to  $1,000  per 
acre  upon  actual  survey  of  the  land,  and  to  compensate  him  for  his  im- 
provements by  a  liberal  appraisement. 

I  think  $750  per  acre  would  be  as  little  as  the  United  States  ought 
to  expect  to-pay  ;  but  I  must  have  some  latitude. 

Until  this  authority  is  given  me,  no  advance  can  be  made  towards 
securing  a  site. 

Now,  as  to  Mr.  Day,  I  regan^  the  proposition  contained  in  his  letter 
as  exorbitant,  and  not  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  It  is  more 
than  two-thirds  as  much  as  Mr.  Brown  wants  for  35  acres,  with  his 
costly  residence  and  improvements  ;  nearly  half  as  much  as  Mr.  Cry- 
der wants  for  three  times  as  much  land,  most  desirably  situated,  and 
occupied  by  a  costly  residence,  with  extensive  outbuildings,  while  Mr. 
Day  has  done  nothing. 

I  would,  therefore,  say  not  a  word  to  him.  Buy  Mr.  Weissman's 
land,  if  we  can,  and  then  offer  Mr.  Day  a  reasonable  comj)ensation, 
(the  samo.  price  per  acre,  or,  perhaps,  a  little  more  than  we  give  Mr. 
Weissman.)     If  he  does  not  accept,  let  him  take  the  consequences. 

The  sketch  herewith  will  show  how  Day's  land  is  situated.  His 
northern  boundary  is  about  1,()00  feet  from  the  extieme  shore  line 
towards  Fort  Schuyler.  The  latter  work,  from  the  extreme  point  to 
the  tail  of  its  glacis,  (a  long  stretched  out  work,)  occupies  but  1 ,800  feet. 

We  should  buy,  if  we  can  reasonably ;  but  we  can  build  without  hm. 

1  am,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

J.  G.  BARNARD, 

Brevet  Major  Engineers. 

Gen.  J.  G.  Totten,  Chief  Engineer. 


TESTIMONY.  101 

Question.  These  papers  you  have  brought  with  you  show  the  pro- 
gress of  the  whole  transaction,  and  the  evidence  upon  which  your 
department  acted  as  to  the  value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  You  asked  for  the  facts  and  circumstances.  I 
am  attempting  to  narrate  the  facts,  which  are  as  1  stated,  and  the 
circumstances  set  forth  in  these  papers. 

Question.  Have  you  a  letter  which  you  wrote  to  iSchell,  and  his 
reply? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  last  clause  in  my  letter  to  Schell  was  sug- 
gested in  conversation  with  the  President,  who  thought  we  ought  to 
proceed  cautiously,  to  prevent  imposition.   The  letter  reads  as  follows: 

War  Departmext, 
Washing /on,  April  13,  1857. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  A  negotiation  has  been  pending  for  some  time  be- 
tween the  United  States  authorities  and  some  parties  in  New  York  for 
the  purchase  of  a  site  for  the  proposed  fort  at  the  Narrows,  opposite 
Fort  Schuyler.  I  send  you,  herewith,  a  map  indicating  the  precise 
locality,  which,  I  presume,  iVom  your  residence  in  New  York,  you 
are  familiar  with.  Tliis  purchase  has  been  discussed  in  the  Cabi- 
net on  several  occasions,  and  the  opinion  seems  to  prevail  (which  is 
mine)  that  the  price  asked  for  that  land  is  exorbitant.  I  am  aware 
that  lands  are  high  in  the  neighborhood  of  tlie  i)roposed  fort,  and  am 
also  aware  that  the  government  cannot  possibly  purchase  land  at  less 
than  its  full  market  value. 

Tins  tract  is  represented  to  contain  at  least  one  hundred  and  thirty 
acres,  probably  more  ;  and  the  price  asked  for  it  by  the  owners  is  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars. 

The  object  of  this  communication  is  to  request  that  you  will  pro- 
ceed at  once  to  ascertain,  as  far  as  ])racticable,  and  by  such  means 
as  you  can  fully  rely  upon,  the  fair  value  of  this  land.  I  desire  you  to 
communicate  with  Mr.  Isaac  Fowler,  and  get  his  estimate  of  its  value 
likewise. 

I  should  be  glad  if  you  would  fortify  the  opinions  of  yourself  and 
Mr.  Fowler  by  those  of  such  real  estate  agents  as  deserve  the  confi- 
dence of  the  community  there  from  their  standing  and  intelligence. 

My  object,  you  will  see  at  once,  is  to  procure  such  information  as  will 
enable  the  government  to  get  at  a  fair  price  for  the  property,  and  to 
protect  it  against  extortion.  I  enjoin  it  upon  you,  therefore,  to  pro- 
ceed with  that  sort  of  caution  and  secresy  which  will  enable  you  to 
avoid  being  imposed  upon  by  any  combinations. 

I  shall  be  highly  gratified  if  you  will  attend  to  this  matter  with  all 
convenient  speed. 

With  the  highest  regard  and  respect,  I  am,  my  dear  sir,  very  truly, 
your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War. 

Augustus  Sciiell,  Esq.,  Neiu  York  Cify. 

Question.  Were  these  the  only  parties  you  gave  "the  privilege 
of  estimating  and  reporting  to  your  department  the  value  of  this 
l)ri)perty  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.     The  general  mode  by  which  the  department 


102  ESTIMOXY. 

gets  its  inforination,  (and  it  is  to  that  source  alone  we  look  for  it,)  is 
through  the  engineer  department,  and  these  papers  will  show  you  the 
opinion  of  the  engineers  ;  hut  the  estimate  of  the  engineers  was  so  far 
below  the  estimate  of  what  these  people  had  asked,  that  on  comparing 
the  two,  it  was  determined  to  take  other  means  of  information  as 
auxiliary  to  the  engineer  in  charge. 

Question.    Who  was  the  engineer  in  charge? 

Answer.  Major  Barnard  was  the  engineer  in  charge  ;  a  man  of  high 
standing  and  character  in  the  army. 

I  receiyed  the  following  reply  to  my  letter  from  Mr.  Schell  and 
Mr.  Fowler : 

New  York,  April  24,  1857. 

Sir  :  In  obedience  to  your  request,  as  contained  in  your  letter  of 
the  13th  A])ril  inst.,  we  haye  made  inquiries  as  to  the  value  of  the 
property  known  as  Willett's  Point,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

The  property  is  situate  on  the  East  riyer,  at  a  conyenient  distance 
from  New  York,  being  one  hour  by  boat  or  railroad,  and  is  decidedly 
the  most  eligible  and  desirable  position  for  the  erection  of  summer 
residences,  for  which  purpose  the  property  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
has  been  used  by  many  of  the  leading  and  wealthy  merchants  ;  and 
the  land  fronting  on  the  water  in  that  vicinity  is  held  by  the  owners 
at  from  $1,000  to  $3,000  per  acre. 

We  have  made  inquiries  of  persons  living  in  the  vicinity,  and  have 
also  procured  a  statement  from  several  auctioneers  in  our  city,  who 
are  acquainted  with  this  property,  and  all  concur  in  estimating  it  to 
be  of  great  value.  A  certificate^  signed  by  some  of  the  persons  in- 
quired of,  is  herewith  transmitted. 

We  also  transmit  a  letter  irom  Mr.  Henry  Grinnell,  who  owns  a 
point  of  land  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  AVillett's  Point,  which  he 
values  at  $3,000,  and  which,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Mickle,  (whose 
letter  we  also  f-end,)  also  a  land  owner  in  the  neighborhood^  is  not  of 
greater  value  than  tliat  in  question. 

An  additional  value  is  given  to  this  land  from  a  recent  act  of  the 
legislature,  said  to  have  passed,  giving  the  owners  the  right  to  the  land 
under  water  to  the  distance  of  four  hundred  feet  from  lowwater  mark. 

Relying  upon  the  statement  made  in  answer  to  our  inquiries,  and 
also  from  a   personal    inspection   of  the    property,  we   think   if   the 
quantity  of  land  is  as   represented,  the  sum  ot  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars  for  the  same  cannot  be  considered  an  exorbitant  price. 
With  great  respect^,  we  remain,  your  obedient  servants, 

AUGUSTUS  SCHKLL, 
ISAAC  V.   FOWLER. 
Hon.  John  P>.  Floyd,  Secretary  of  War, 

Engineer  DeparTxMent, 

February  27,  1858. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original   now  on  file  in  this 

office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


TESTIMONY  103 

Question.  Who  treated  with  the  department  as  the  owner  or  owners 
of  this  land  ? 

Answer.   A  man  named  Irving. 

Question.   Any  other  parties  ? 

Answer.  None.  The  thing  was  entirely  done  through  the  papers 
which  are  here  ;  indeed,  I  remember  very  little  conversation  with  any- 
body on  the  subject,  except  the  engineers  and  the  Cabinet. 

Question.   Did  this  belong  to  the  engineer  department? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  This  paper  had  very  considerable  influence  in 
fixing  the  price  of  the  land. 

New  York,  April  23,  1857. 
The  undersigned  are  acquainted  with  the  location  and  character  of 
the  property  known  as  Willet's  Neck.  It  is  situated  directly  opposite 
to  Fort  Schuyler,  on  Long  Island  Sound,  and  is  well  adapted  for  the 
site  of  a  fortification  on  account  of  its  peculiar  formation,  it  being 
bounded  on  three  sides  by  water,  and  from  its  elevation  commanding 
all  the  prominent  adjacent  points  of  land. 

The  occupation  of  this  piece  of  ground  would  seem  to  be  indispen- 
sable to  a  perfect  system  of  fortifications  of  the  Sound.  The  tract  of 
ground  offered  for  sale  by  Mr.  Irving,  is  said  to  contain  not  less  than 
one  hundred  acres,  nor  more  than  one  hundred  and  thirty  acres,  meas- 
ured to  low  water  mark.  Thus  measured,  the  additional  water-right 
of  four  hundred  feet  recently  granted  by  a  law  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  will  be  rendered  available  and  of  great  value. 

On  comparing  this  property  with  other  land  of  known  value  in  the 
same  neighborhood,  and  in  view  of  its  perfect  adaptation  to  public 
purposes,  we  estimate  it  to  be  worth  two  thousand  two  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars  per  acre  ;  and,  in  addition  thereto,  from  representations 
on  which  we  rely,  we  value  the  improvements,  (a  large  mansion-house 
and  out-buildings,  and  a  large  deposit  of  stone  adapted  to  wall-build- 
ing,) at  twenty  thousand  dollars. 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that  we  are  in  no  way  interested  in  the  above 
described  propertv,  directly  or  indirectly. 

JAMES  M.  xMELLER, 

WM.  M.  WEEKS, 

JACOB  Y.  BAKER, 

THEO.  B.  BLEECKER  &  BURLINa. 

Engineer  Department, 

February  27,  1858. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original  now  on  file  in  this 
office. 

H.  a.  AVRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers ,  in  charge. 

Upon  those  papers  as  they  stand,  but  chiefly  upon  this  representa- 
tion of  Mr.  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler,  the  exigencies  of  the  public  service 
requiring  that  the  work  should  be  begun,  we,  although  believing  the 
price  at  the  time  exorbitant,  concluded  to  give  it.  These  are  the  facts 
and  circumstances  as  far  as  I  know  them. 


104  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Why  did  not  the  department  take  that  property  under 
the  condemnation  act  which  was  passed  on  the  15th  of  April  in  New 
York  ? 

Answer.  There  were  two  reasons.  On  consultation,  it  seemed  to  be 
the  opinion  of  all  that  a  condemnation  is  likely  to  increase  the  price 
of  the  land  ;  and  that  a  reference  or  bargain  of  any  sort  you  can 
make  is  likely  to  be  hetter  than  a  condemnation.  Major  Barnard, 
who  was  in  charge  of  the  work,  when  he  found  that  the  property  had 
gone  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  suggested  that ;  but  in  the  pro- 
gress of  his  communications  on  the  subject,  he  expressed  the  opinion 
that  a  condemnation  would  enable  those  people  to  get  more  extiava- 
gant  rates  for  their  land  than  the  land  could  be  gotten  for  at  private 
sale. 

Question.  Who  are  the  speculators  who  got  hold  of  this  property? 

Answer.   A  man  nam','d  Irving. 

Question.  Any  other  parties  that  you  know  of? 

Answer.  None,  that  1  know  of  ;  and  the  intimation  in  the  papers 
about  that  contained  in  the  letter  of  Major  Barnard,  I  never  saw  until 
last  night.  I  never  heard  much  about  the  sale  of  the  property  by 
the  original  owner,  until  after  it  had  passed  out  of  his  hands  ;  which 
occurred  in  March,  according  to  the  papers.  The  first  intimation  of  that 
in  a  letter  of  Major  Barnard's.  Although  he  seems  to  have  doubted  was 
from  first  to  last,  that  these  speculators  could  get  the  land,  I  now 
think,  if  prompt  measures  had  been  taken  early  in  March  to  foil  those 
attempting  to  buy  the  property,  it  might  have  been  acquired  for  the 
same  sum  for  which  it  was  sold  to  Irving,  which  was  $130,000  ;  but  I 
was  not  aware  this  state  of  things. 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  called  at  the  engineer  department  and  put  some  in- 
quiries to  General  Totten  about  the  matter,  having  been  informed  that 
the  property  could  have  been  purchased  for  $35,000  a  few  months  be- 
fore. 

Mr.  Floyd.  Here  is  the  first  intimation  that  Irving  had  })urchased 
the  property.  It  a[)pears  by  the  following  letter  that  Major 
Barnard  knew  as  early  as  the  27th  of  March,  but  not  earlier,  that 
this  had  gone  into  the  hands  of  Irving. 

[Private  and  confidential. — Received  March  28,  1857.] 

New  York,  March  27,  1856,  [1857.] 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  just  returned  from  F(U't  Schuyler  and  Wilkins's 
Point  this  morning,  and  was  debating  whether  I  should  not  proceed 
at  once  to  Washington  and  consult  ])ersonally  on  this  matter.  To 
one  unaccustomed  to  look  with  suspicion  upon  others,  who  believes 
that  tlie  confidential  ap[)eal  to  a  gentleman  for  information  and  ad- 
vice will  be  held  sacred,  it  is  a  trial  and  a  mortification  to  learn  to 
distrust  every  one  ;  to  have  reason  to  believe  that  confidence  answered 
by  an  attem{)t  to  draw  from  your  confidence  every  means  of  using  it 
to  your  disadvantage.  Such  are  the  difficulties  of  even  getting  reliable 
information,  (with  no  very  extensive  acquaintance.) 

But  so  far  as  I  can  form  a  conclusion  from  what  I  learn,  the 
2)rice  of  $700  or   $750  per  acre  would  not  be  out  of  proportion  to  the 


TESTIMONY  105 

actual  value  of  Wilkins's  Point.  I  believe  Cryder,  Brown,  and  Hag- 
gerty  (proprietors  about  '^  Old  Fort,"  are  candid  in  /Ae/r  statements 
and  uninfluenced  eitber  by  desire  to  sell  or  wisb  or  expectation  of  ex- 
tracting money  from  tbe  government.  The  two  former  value  their 
tracts  at  $1,000.  Haggerty  (to  the  westward  of  Cryder)  would 
probably  sell  for  §700  or  $800.  General  Wetmore  owns  a  place  on 
the  eastern  side  of  Little  Neck  Bay,  which  he  values  at  $G00.  The 
general  opinion  seems  to  be  that  Wilkins's  Point  possesses  rather  un- 
usual advantages  for  country  seats. 

I  was  mistaken  in  saying  that  Mr.Weissman  had  expended  $11,000 
on  his  house  and  improvements.  He  says  he  has  expended  $15,000, 
and  as  the  building  is  really  a  large  one,  having  some  pretence  to 
architectural  decoration,  it  is  quite  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  does 
not  misrepresent. 

I  think  a  conscientious  jury  would  award  him  somewhere  about 
$100,000  for  grounds  and  improvements.  But  a  perfect  horde  of 
vultures  have  been  attracted  by  the  announcement  of  this  appropria- 
tion, and  there  are  all  sorts  of  schemes  on  foot  to  make  the  govern- 
ment pay  an  extorbitant  price.  Van  Nostrand  has  been  offered 
bribes,  simply  because,  as  a  friend  known  to  me  for  twenty  years,  and  a 
New  Yorker  by  birth,  he  has  aided  me  in  getting  information. 

Last  night  a  paper  was  brought  to  me  by  a  gentleman  intimate 
with  Weissman  (was  this  gentleman  concerned  in  the  matter  ?  you 
know  him  as  well  as  I,  perhaps  better — it  was  Mr.  Jno.W.  Lawrence, 
once  a  member  of  Congress,  a  man  of  wealth  and  standing)  being  a 
written  agreement,  dated  Flushing,  March  26,  between  Weissman 
and  one  George  Irving,  (who  he  is  Mr.  Lawrence  ap[)eared  not  to 
know,  though  he  believed  him  to  be  a  person  who  has  been  buying 
land  about  Whitestone's  Point,)  by  which  Mr.  W.  sold  to  Mr.  Irving 
for  $130,000,  $5,000  payable  April  1,  $15,000  May  1,  $25,000  July 
1  ;  provided^  that  if  first  ])ayment  or  second  })ayment  are  not  made, 
the  agreement  is  to  be  null  and  void  ;  and  further,  that  if  Ihe  United 
StoAes  purchase  he  fore  ihe  first  of  April,  the  agreement  is  to  he  null  and 
void. 

Who  were  the  contrivers  of  this  I  don't  know  ;  but  I  could  not  help 
believin^c  it  a  thing  meant  to  woik  upon  me.  They  don't  know  yet 
that  Wilkins's  Point  is  definitely  fixed  upon.  They  don't  know 
whether  or  not  I  have  authority  to  conclude  a  bargain,  nor  do  they 
know  how  much  the  government  will  give,  though  I  have  made  it 
known  pretty  decidedly  that  the  government  was  under  no  stress  in 
the  matter,  and  would  not  pay  any  such  sum  as  here  mentioned. 

It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  Mr.  Weissman  would  now  accept  the  sum 
I  asked  authority  to  offer  him  ;  and  with  the  knowledge  that  Mr. 
Weissman  has  signed  such  a  })aper,  (which,  even  admitting  he  is  not 
himsdf  a  party  to  a  ])lot,)  he  must  know  had  no  other  object  than  to 
extort  money  from  the  government,  I  don't  think  any  price  ought  to 
be  offered  him,  but  that  the  properly  should  be  condemned  and  adju- 
dicated. 

The  sketch  of  Day's  land  is  about  as  definite  on  my  sketch  as  on 
the  original,  which  I  send,  (to  be  returned.)  It  is  the  best  indication 
I  had,  and  was  sent  (prepared   hastily  for  the  mail)  to  show  where 


106  TESTIMONY. 

his  land  lay,  and  informing  you  that  Lis  nearest  line   was  IjGOO  feet 
(as  near  as  I  could  judge)  from  the  extremity  of  the  point. 
1  am,  yours,  very  respectfully, 

J.  G.  BARNARD, 

Brevet  Major  Engineers. 
General  Jos.  G.  Totten, 

Chief  Engineer^  die. 

^  P.  S. —  The  agreement  hetween  Weissmanand  Irving  (mentioned  on 
the  other  page)  was  confidentially  communicated.  As  it  was  to  me  as  a 
government  agent  that  it  was  shown,  I  deem  it  proper  to  communi- 
cate it. 

Engineer  Department, 

February  27,  1858. 

The  within  is  a  true  co])y  from  the  original  filed  in  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 

Question.  Had  you  any  information  from  the  engineer  de[)artment 
as  to  the  value  of  the  property  hefore  it  came  into  Irving's  hands? 

Answer.  No  definite  inibrmation.  You  will  see,  from  reading  these 
letters  of  Major  Barnard,  that  he  speaks  of  the  fact  mentioned  by  Mr. 
Haskin  tliat  the  land  had  some  time  since  cost  $35,000.  He  does  not 
say  it  could  ever  have  heen  got  tor  less  than  $130,000;  hut  argues 
to  show  tliat  $100,000  was  the  lowest  ])rice  the  land  ever  could  have 
been  got  for.  He  says  the  land  was  i)urchased  not  very  long  before 
for  $35,000. 

Question.  Did  the  government  purchase  it  as  containing  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  acres? 

Answer.   I  do  not  rememher  ;  the  ])apers  will  show. 

Question.  Permit  me  to  inquire  what  the  reason  was,  if  there  was 
any  reason,  for  giving  beyond  the  $150,000,  which  was  the  amount  of 
the  appropriation  ? 

Answer.  It  was  simply  because  we  could  not  get  it  for  less.  I  was 
desirous  to  commence  that  work,  because  it  is  an  important  work. 
The  engineers  attach,  very  properly,  great  importance  to  a  tbrtification 
at  tliat  point.  The  works  at  this  {)()int  will  render  New  York  im- 
pregnable irom  that  direction,  and,  consequently,  rise  to  the  imj)()rt- 
ance  of  great  national  defences  ;  and  I  supposed,  as  an  appropriation 
had  been  made  for  the  construction  of  the  work  there,  the  great  object 
was   in  commencing  it  and  progressing  with  it  as  rai)idly  as  possible. 

Question.  What  have  you  done  towards  the  commencement  of  the 
fortification  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  apprized  of  what  progress  has  been  made  in  the 
work. 


TESTIMONY.  107 


Examined  by  3Ir.  Hall. 

Question.  When  was  this  fortification  first  recommended  by  the 
government? 

Answer.   About  thirty  years  ago. 

Question.  Was  it  under  (xeneral  Bernard's  plan? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  exactly,  but  the  papers,  I  think,  will  show. 
As  far  back  as  thirty  years  ago  that  point  was  looked  to  as  very  im- 
portant for  fortifications. 

Question,  by  the  chairman.  Did  not  Irving  make  other  offers  of  land 
between  Whitestone  and  Willetts  Point? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  ;  if  so,  the  offers  are  in  the  papers. 
The  prices  of  the  lands  in  that  neighborhood  offered  for  sale  to  the 
United  States,  were,  with  the  improvements  included,  about  the  same 
which  was  given  for  the  lands  purchased.  Some  were  rated  much 
higher.  The  lands  of  Mr.  Grinnell  were  held  at  $3,000  ])er  acre  ; 
but  this  price  was  probably  owing  to  the  fancy  he  may  have  had  for 
the  particular  locality.  The  lands  purchased  were  exactly  at  the  most 
eligible  ])oint  for  the  fortifications,  and  therefore  preference  was 
given  to  them. 

Question.  Is  there  any  report  as  to  the  quantity  of  land  required 
for  the  fortification  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  I  do  not  recollect  what  it  is.  I  think  it 
amounts  to  this,  that  with  this  purchase  the  engineers  could  get 
along,  but  that  it  would  be  better  to  purchase  an  additional  portion 
of  the  land,  which  belonged  to  a  man  named  Day.  I  think  the  price 
Day  asked  will  appear  on  the  pa[)ers 

Question.  Where  will  tlie  committee  get  information  as  to  when 
the  S115/J00  was  paid,  and  to  whom  it  was  paid,  and  where  it  was 
paid? 

Answer.  It  can  be  found  very  readily.  It  was  paid  ui)on  a  requisi- 
tion of  the  War  Department,  and  in  favor  o^  some  particuUir  man. 

Question.   You  do  not  remember  to  whom  it  was  paid? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  of  any  person  being  interested  in  the 
proceeds  of  this  sale  except  George  Irving  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  I  see  there  is  a  mortgage  of  §85,000  left  upon  the  prop- 
erty.    Do  you  know  wlio  is  the  j)resent  owner? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  All  the  law  questions  of  the  case  were  laid  be- 
fore the  United  States  district  attorney  for  that  portion  of  New  York. 

Question.    To  Mr.  McKeon? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  when  they  came  from  him  were  referred  to 
the  Attorney  General.  I  never  saw  a  paper  connected  with  them.  I 
took  it  for  granted  that  what  the  United  States  district  attorney  in 
New  York  would  do,  and  what  the  United  States  Attorney  General 
would  sanction,  was  right ;  and  I  did  not  rely  with  confidence  on  my 
own  legal  opinions,  nor  had  I  time  to  look  into  legal  questions,  and 
therefore  adopted  those  of  officers  upon  whom  the  law  placed  the  re- 
sponsibility of  deciding  them. 


108  TESTIMONY. 

Captain  H.  G.  Wright  was  then  examioed  by  the  Chairman. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  sale  and  purchase  by  the  government  of  this  prop- 
erty at  Wilkins's  Point? 

Answer.  I  think  all  I  know  is  shown  by  the  papers  which  the 
Secretary  of  War  has  just  laid  before  you.  It  is  a  mere  matter  of 
record,  and  our  connexion  with  it  is  shown  by  the  papers,  except, 
perhaps,  the  matter  of  payment ;  that  went  through  our  office,  and 
was  paid  by  one  of  our  officers  who  was  made  disbursing  officer. 
It  was  sent  to  get  more  signatures  to  the  voucher^  in  order  to  pass  the 
expenditure  through  the  treasury.  The  requisition  was  drawn  in 
favor  of  Lieutenant  Gillmore,  of  New  York,  and  a  letter  of  instruc- 
tions was  sent  by  the  department  to  him  to  pay  the  money  over  to 
these  persons — Mr.  Irving  and  his  wife. 

Question.   You  are  the  captain^  in  charge,  at  the  engineer  bureau  ? 

Answer.  I  am  in  charge. 

Question.  Is  this  fortification  a  part  of  the  old  system  which  has 
been  in  operation  some  thirty  years? 

Answer.  I  think  the  original  plan  was  made  about  thirty  years  ago, 
and  if  I  recollect  aright,  General  Bernard  was  one  of  the  members  of 
the  board  who  adopted  it.  This  locality  was  always  considered  an 
important  position  to  fortify,  and  the  question  has  been  brought  up 
since  I  have  been  in  the  office— within  two  years,  and  before  Governor 
Floyd  came  into  office.  There  have  been  quite  voluminous  reports  in 
relation  to  it,  from  our  office  and  the  War  Department,  fixing  upon 
this  position. 

Question.  The  matter  has  been  specially  pressed  within  two  years  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  to  my  knowledge,  since  I  have  been  in  the  office. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  the  matter  has  been  specially  re- 
commended to  the  department  within  the  time  you  have  been  in  the 
office? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  matter  has  been  reported  on  more  than  once 
within  my  recollection.  I  know  it  was  under  Mr.  Davis,  the  late 
Secretary. 

Question.   Where  is  Major  Barnard? 

Answer.   He  is  on  his  way  to  New  York. 

(Question.  Do  you  not  know  of  any  one  who  was  interested  in  this 
malter,  save  and  except  George  Irving? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that.  I  never  had  any 
transactions  with  Mr.  Irving  at  all. 

Adjourned. 

March  11,  1858. 

Present— Mr.  Ilaskin,  Mr.  Wood,  and  Mr.  Hall, 

Q  A.  GiLLMORi:,  sworn.  Examined  by  the  chairman,  (Mr.  Ilaskin,) 
and  testified  as  follows  : 

I  am  a  lieutenant  of  engineers  United  States  army,  and  am  sta- 
tioned at  New  York  city  ;  1  was  stationed  there  one  year  last  Decem- 
ber. Of  tlie  negotiations  which  led  to  the  purchase  of  Wilkins's  Point 
by  the  government,  I  know  absolutely  nothing  ;  I  believe  the  nego- 


TESTIMONY. 


109 


tiations  were  commenced  and  continued,  but  not  concluded,  by  Major 
Barnard  ;  he  was  the  proper  person  to  have  done  it;  it  came  within 
his  province  ;  he  had  charge  at  the  time  of  the  fortifications  in  the 
whole  harbor  of  New  York  ;  on  the  9th  of  July,  1857,  I  received  a 
letter  from  General  Totten,  from  Washington,  informing  me  that  I 
would  receive  a  draft  in  my  favor,  and  drawn  to  my  order,  for 
IllOjOOO,  and  directing  me  to  pay  that  sum  over  to  George  Irving  and 
his  wife,  on  account  of  a  purchase  of  land  made  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  of  those  persons,  at  Wilkins's  or  Willett's  Point,  for  a  fortifi- 
cation. The  letter  was  dated  the  8th  of  July^  1857.  The  following 
is  a  copy  of  the  letter  : 

Engineer  Department, 

Washington,  July  8,  1857. 

Sir:  You  will  receive  a  treasury  draft  in  your  favor  for  one  hundred 
and  fifteen  thousand  dollars^  which  sum  you  will  pay  to  Mr.  George 
Irving  and  wife,  on  account  of  a  purchase  of  land  made  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  of  f-'aid  persons,  as  the  site  of  a  fortification  about  to  be 
begun  at  Willet's  Point,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

You  will,  in  person,  deliver  this  draft  to  Mr.  Irving  and  wife,  hav- 
ing made  it  payable  to  them,  taking,  at  the  same  time,  such  receipt, 
in  duplicate,  as  will  be  your  voucher  at  the  treasury. 

A  voucher  of  the  form  herewith  is  recommended.     Your  immediate 
attention  to  this  business  is  requested. 
Very,  &c., 

JOS.  G.  TOTTEN, 
Brevet  Brig.  Gen.,  and  Col.  Engineers, 
Lieut.  Q.  A.  Gillmore_, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  York. 

The  United  States,  for  the  commencement  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler, 
New  York,  to  George  Irving  and  Rohertine  Irving,  Dr. 


Date. 

Designation. 

Application. 

Cost. 

1857. 
July 

P'or  payment  on  account  of  a  purchase 
of  land  at    "Thomas'    or    Willet's 
Neck,"  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  from  j 
said  George  Irving  and   Rubertine  | 
Irving,  his  wife,  as  the  site  for  a  for-  i 
tilication  about  to  be  begun  there 

$115,000  00 

Peceived,  at  New  York,  this day  of  July,  1857^  from  Lieu- 
tenant Q.  A.  Gillraore,  corps  of  engineers,  the  sum  of  one  hundred 
and  fifteen  thousand  dollars  and  no  cents,  in  lull  payment  of  the  above 
account. 

(Signed,  in  duplicate,) 

GEORGE  IRVING, 
ROBERTINE  IRVING. 


110  TESTIMONY. 


[Extract.] 


New  York,  Juhj  10,  1S57. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letters  of 
the  8th  and  9th  instant. 

The  matter  referred  to  in  the  former  has  been  attended  to,  and  joint 
receipts,  in  duplicate,  from  George  Irving  and  Robertine  Irving,  his 

wife,  taken  in  the  form  furnished  by  you. 

***** 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

(?.  A.  GILLMORE, 
First  Lieutenant  Engineers. 
Brig.  Gen.  Joseph  G.  Totten, 

Chief  Engineer^  United  Slates  Army,  Washington,  D.  C. 

I  made  the  payment  on  the  morning  of  the  9th  of  July,  1857, 
taking  a  receipt  from  Irving  and  wife.  The  draft  was  endorsed  over 
by  me,  payable  to  the  order  of  George  Irving.  I  took  his  receipt  at 
my  office  in  the  morning,  and  called  at  his  house  in  the  evening,  and 
took  the  receipt  of  his  wife.  Mr.  Richard  Schell  came  to  me  with 
Irving  on  the  morning  of  tbe  9ih  of  July,  18^7,  and  ])resented  me 
with  a  letter  from  his  brother  Augustus,  now  the  collector  of  the  port 
of  New  York,  introducing  him  to  me.  Richard  Schell  was  present 
when  the  draft  was  endorsed  over  by  me  to  Irving.  The  draft  was 
brought  through  those  parties.  I  did  not  get  it  through  the  mail.  I 
did  not  see  the  draft  passed  over  to  Richard  8chell.  The  letter  from 
Augustus  Schell,  introducing  his  brother  Richard,  said  '^  he  had 
business  requiring  attention  to-day."  My  impression  is,  that  Richard 
Schell  then  said  that  he  advanced  the  money  to  buy  the  property 
from  the  original  holders. 

Examination  hy  Mr.  Hall: 

I  judged  Schell  had  an  interest  in  it,  from  his  saying  he  had  an  in- 
terest in  it,  having  advanced  money  to  purchase  the  property  of  the 
original  holders.  My  connexion  with  the  affair  was  simply  that  of  a 
disbursing  agent. 

March  17,  1858. 
Present — Mr.  Haskin,  (chairman,)  Mr.  Hopkins,  and  ]\Ir.  Hall. 

Isaac  V.  Fowler,  being  sworn  and  examined  by  the  chairman, 
testified  as  follows : 

I  am  the  postmaster  of  the  city  of  New  York.  Mr.  Augustus  Schell 
called  U[)on  me  at  the  })()st  office  in  New  York  and  showed  me  a  letter 
from  Governor  Floyd,  Secretary  of  War,  directing  him  to  ascertain 
the  value  of  the  property  known  as  Willett's  or  Wilkins's  Point.  My 
impression  is  that  this  was  as  late  as  June,  1857,  although  the  letters 
make  it  April,  1857.  It  was  certainly  after  the  third  Monday  of 
April,  1857,  because  the  Tammany  election  took  i)lace  that  day,  and 
I  know  it  was  subsequent   to   that  date.     1  arranged  to  go  with  Mr. 


TESTIMONY.  Ill 

Schell  on  the  second  day  following  his  call  upon  me  to  visit  the  prop- 
erty. We  procc'ded  by  steamboat  to  Flushing,  where  we  met  Prosper 
M.  Wetmore  and  a  Mr.  Irving,  with  a  carriage.  General  Wetmore 
said  he  was  visiting  Mr.  Irving,  and  had  been  in  the  habit  of  spend- 
ing his  summers  in  that  neighborhood  ;  and  that  he  had  informed  Mr. 
Irving  that  it  would  be  an  act  of  courtesy,  appreciated  by  Mr.  Schell 
and  myself,  if  he  would  drive  down  and  take  us  to  Wilkins's  Point ; 
that  he  knew  we  were  coming,  through  Schell.  I  was  not  previously 
informed  of  his  knowing  of  our  coming.  We  from  there  proceeded, 
in  Irving's  carriage,  to  Wilkins's  Point,  where,  on  arriving,  we  were 
introduced  to  a  Mr.  Wiessman,  who  was  residing  on  the  property  in 
a  house  he  had  built  there.  We  then  w^alked  over  the  property,  after 
which  we  had  a  collation,  prepared  by  Mr.  Wiessman,  and  we  then 
returned  with  Irving  and  Wetmore  to  Flushing.  Irving  there  left 
us,  and  we  hired  a  carriage,  and  Wetmore,  Schell,  and  myself  returned 
to  the  city  of  New  York.  The  next  day,  or  within  a  i'ew  days  there- 
after, by  appointment  made  by  Mr.  Augustus  Schell,  we  called  upon 
Mr.  A.  H.  Mickle,  at  his  store  in  Water  street.  New  York,  to  inquire 
of  him  as  to  the  value  of  Wilkins's  Point  and  property  in  its  vicinity. 
He  gave  us  a  letter,  which  was  to  accompany  our  report. 

(See  Appendix.) 

Mr.  Schell  informed  me  that  Mr.  Henry  Grinnell  valued  his  prop- 
erty at  $3^000  per  acre,  with  the  improvements  I  was  never  on  this 
property  ;  it  is  a  lew  miles  nearer  New  York.  I  do  not  remember 
any  other  valuations  being  mentioned  to  me  by  him  ;  and  if  there 
had  been,  I  think  I  would  have  recollected  them.  Mr.  Schell  wrote 
the  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  which  he  and  I  signed,  at  his 
request. — (See  letter  in  testimony  of  Hon.  John  B.  Floyd,  signed 
"  Augustus  Schell  and  I.  V.  Fowler.")  The  other  letter — Mickle's 
letter — was  written  in  his  store,  I  tliink,  by  Mr.  Augustus  Schell. 
After  he  had  conversed  with  him  some  time  about  the  property,  and 
its  value,  he  read  it,  and  signed  it.  Mickle  stated  that  he  considered 
that  all  these  pieces  of  property  were  too  highly  estimated  by  their 
owners.  This  conversation  was  before  the  letter  was  signed.  He 
said  the  owners  put  too  high  an  estimate  upon  them  as  fancy  places. 
Mr.  Schell  desired  him  to  certify  to  the  value  of  Wilkins's  Point  per 
acre,  but  he  refused,  and  did  not  put  any  price  upon  it ;  his  talk  was 
general.  He  did  not  put  a  price  upon  hi  j  own  property  ;  he  did  not 
name  any  price  per  acre  on  the  Wilkins's  Point  property.  We  did 
not  see  Mr.  Grinnell  upon  the  subject.  I  saw  no  one  but  those  I 
have  named.  While  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  was  pre[)aring  his  letter — 
the  one  signed  by  us,  in  his  office  that  afternoon — Mr.  Richard  Schell 
came  into  the  office.  He  remained  but  a  moment,  and  went  out. 
After  I  had  signed  the  letter,  with  Augustus  Schell,  on  my  way  to 
the  street  I  met  at  the  door  Mr.  Ricliard  Schell  and  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore,  and  one  of  them  asked  me:  "Have  you  signed  the  letter  ?" 
I  replied,  "  Yes."  The  remark  was  then  made  by  one  of  them — I 
cannot  tell  which  :  "It  is  important  that  it  should  be  sent  off  this 
afternoon." 

Question.  Did  you  form  your  judgment  of  the  value   solely  from 


112  TESTIMONY. 

conversation   with   Mr.    Augustus  Schell,  or  how   did  you  arrive  at 
your  conclusions  in  the  letter  signed  by  him  and  you? 

Answer.  Entirely  from  conversations  with  Mr.  Augustus  Schell, 
Mr.  Wetmore,  and  Mr.  Irving,  and  from  the  statement  made  by  Mr. 
Mickle.  These  were  the  only  people  I  talked  with  on  the  subject.  I 
concluded  it  was  worth  $1,500  per  acre.  I  supposed  the  gentleman, 
Mr.  Wiessman.  who  resided  on  the  property,  was  the  owner  of  the 
property  at  the  time  we  signed  the  letter.  I  do  not  know  of  the  par- 
ties who  had  any  interest  in  the  selling  of  the  property  to  the  govern- 
ment. I  did  not  know,  at  the  time  I  signed  the  letter,  that  Irving  or 
any  other  person  had  any  interest  in  the  property,  but  supposed  Wiess- 
man was  the  owner,  and  the  only  person  interested. 

Examination  by  Mr   Hall. 

Mr.  Mickle  was  reluctant  to  put  any  value  upon  the  property,  and 
did  not.  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  wrote  the  letter  which  we  signed  on 
the  same  day  after  we  called  at  Mickle' s  store.  I  had  no  knowledge 
whatever  of  the  value  save  from  the  facts  I  have  stated.  We  esti- 
mated the  property  as  containing  at  least  thirty  acres  of  land,  and  I 
calculated  it  at  $1,500  per  acre.  The  statement  in  our  letter  of  addi- 
tional value,  on  account  of  land  under  water,  was  deriv^ed  from  Mr. 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore. 

Satukday,  May  1,  1858. 

Ktchard  Schell,  sworn.  Examined  by  the  chairman,  (Hon.  J.  B. 
Haskin.) 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  In  the  city  and  c  unty  c  f  New  York. 

Question.   What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  have  been  a  broker  and  a  banker  ;  I  am  not  doing  any- 
thing special  now. 

Question.  What  was  your  business  in  March,  April,  May,  June, 
and  July,  1857? 

Answer.   1  was  a  broker  and  banker. 

Question.  In  the  city  of  New  York? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  did  you  first  hear,  and  from  whom  did  you  first 
hear,  of  an  appropriation  by  government  to  j)archase  property  on 
Long  Island,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler? 

Answer.  1  think  I  heard  it  from  General  Prosper  M.  Wetmore. 

(Question.   In  what  month? 

Answer.   It  may  have  been  in  May  or  June,  1857. 

Question.   Are  you  certain  you  lieard  it  IVom  him? 

Answer.   My  impressions  are  that  I  heard  it  from  him. 

Question.  What  did  he  say  to  you  at  the  time  in  relation  to  this 
ap])ropriation  ? 

Answer.  He  came  in,  I  think,  and  told  me  that  he  had  been  for 
a  long  time  a  resident,  had  owned  })r()perty  down  on  Long  Island, 
and  that  he  was  satisfied  that  the  government  would  want  a  place 


TESTmONY  113 

there  for  a  fortification.  He  brought  me  in  a  book,  probably  about 
this  size,  only  one-third  longer,  (exhibiting  a  book  about  ten  inches 
by  seven,)  which  gave  the  general  appropriations  for  all  the  fortifica- 
tions throughout  the  United  States. 

Question.  Did  he  state  anything  about  purchasing  the  land? 

Answer.  He  said  he  could  get  property  down  there  if  he  could  raise 
the  money  to  make  the  payments. 

Question.  What  property  ? 

Answer.  This  property  of  Wilkins'  Point.  He  said  George  Irving 
wanted  to  make  a  purchase  down  there,  and  he  wanted  to  raise  money. 
I  said  I  can  raise  any  amount  of  money  for  anything. 

Question.  Did  he  make  a  proposition  to  you  to  loan  an  amount  of 
money  to  purchase  this  property  ? 

Answer.  He  made  a  proposition  to  borrow  money  from  me  for  the 
purpose.     I  suppose,  on  account  of  Greorgje  Irving. 

Question.  You  say  you  think  this  was  in  May  or  June? 

Answer    I  think  so. 

Question.  How  much  did  he  say  he  wished  to  borrow? 

Answer.  He  wanted  §1,000  at  that  time,  which  I  gave  him. 

Question.  Subsequent  to  this,  how  much  did  you  give  him?  Did 
he  state  then  how  much  in  gross  he  would  want  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  he  only  stated  then  that  he  wanted  $1,000  ;  after- 
wards he  came  in  and  wanted  $9,000,  and  told  me  that  G-eorge  Irving 
had  taken  the  refusal  of  the  place.     I  let  him  have  §9,000. 

Question.  In  addition  to  this,  how  much  did  you  let  him  have? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  twenty  or  twenty-five  thousand  dollars. 

Question.  About  what  time  did  you  let  him  have  the  $9,000  ? 

Answer.  My  impressions  are  that  it  was  in  the  month  of  June. 

Question.  Had  you  at  that  time  seen  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  at  that  time. 

Question.  Subsequently  you  advanced  twenty  or  twenty-five  thou- 
sand dollars  ? 

Answer.  I  was  sent  to  Mr.  Irving's  lawyer. 

Question.  By  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Who  was  Mr   Irving's  lawyer  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  ;  and  whatever  he  told  me  to 
do,  I  did. 

Question.  You  advanced,  after  the  §9,000,  how  much? 

Answer.  §20,000  or  §25,000. 

Question.  To  whom  did  you  make  that  payment  ? 
Answer.  To  William  C.  Wetmore. 
Question.  About  what  time  was  that? 

Answer.  I  think  it  may  have  been  in  the  latter  part  of  June. 
Question.  What  more  did  you  advance? 

Answer.  The  amount  of  the  sums  I  have  already  given  you  is  §30,000 
or  $35,000.     It  is  my  impression  that  is  all  I  advanced  at  that  time. 
Question.  Did  you  advance  any  money  subsequently? 
Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Question.  Had  you,  at  the  time  you  advanced  §20,000  or  $25,000, 
seen  Mr.  Irving  ? 

H.  Rep.  Com.  549 8 


114  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  My  impression  is,  I  had. 

Question.  You  had  seen  him  between  the  payment  of  the  |9,000 
and  the  $20,000  or  §25,000? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Who  introduced  you  to  Irving? 
Answer.  General  Prosper  M.  Wetmore. 

Question.  So  you  think  that  $30,000  or  |35,000  is  the  whole  amount 
you  advanced? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.     The  reason  I  cannot  give  it  distinctly  is,  that 
ray  business  in  the  month  of  July  was  eleven  and  a  half  millions  of 
dollars,  and  probably  in  the  month  of  June  five  or  six  millions  ;  and 
I  did  not  give  this  transaction  much  attention. 
Question.  Bo  you  know  Robert  W.  Latham  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  him? 
Answer.  Two,  three,  or  four  years. 
Question.  Have  you  been  intimate  with  him  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  had  business  with  him  as  a  broker  during  that 
period  of  time  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  during  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June, 
or  July,  converse  with  you  about  this  purchase  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  did,  although  he  may  have  talked  to  me 
about  it,  for  he  was  running  in  and  out  of  my  office  frequently,  and 
he  may  have  mentioned  it  to  me,  and  I  have  not  paid  much  attention 
to  it. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  state  to  you  that  he  considered  the  price  at 
which  the  government  was  to  purchase  this  property  from  Irving  ex- 
orbitant ? 

Answer.    I  do  not  remember.     I  do  know  that  he  used   to  ask 
whether  the  government  was  buying  any  property. 
Question.  What  property  ? 

Answer.  This  property  at  Wilkins'  Point ;  but  I  never  paid  any 
attention. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  Governor  Floyd  ? 
Answer.  I  think  George  Sanders  introduced  me  to  him  two  or  three 
years  ago. 

Question.  Have  you  been  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  him  since  that 
time? 

Answer.  Whenever  he  visited  New  York  I  have  seen  him. 
Question.  Have  you  had  business  relations  with  him  during  that 
time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 
Question.  Not  as  a  broker  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  had  business  relations  with  Mr.  Latham  as  a 
broker? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  On  Governor  Floyd's  behalf? 


TESTIMONY?.  115 

Answfejp.  1  do  not  know.  He  came  to  me  to  make  negotiations  just 
th^  same  as  anybody  else. 

Question.  Did  you  not  know  at  the  time  that  he  was  Governor 
Floyd's  agent  in  his  private  aifairs  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  know  that. 

Question.  Did  he  not  state  it  to  you? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of;  he  may  have  stated  it  to  me,  but 
so  far  as  regards  that  I  do  not  know. 

Question,  Have  you  ever  negotiated  loans  with  Latham  to  enure  to 
the  benefit  of  Governor  Floyd  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  Have  you  not,  as  a  broker,  had  the  paper  of  Latham  or 
of  Governor  Floyd  himself? 

Answer.  I  had  the  paper  of  Mr.  Floyd,  but  I  did  not  know  Mr. 
Floyd  in  the  transaction.  Mr.  Latham  brought  me  that  paper.  I' 
never  had  a  transaction  v>rith  Mr.  Floyd  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  When  had  you  the  paper  of  Governor  Floyd? 

Answer.  I  have  had  more  or  less  of  it  for  a  year. 

Question.  To  what  amount,  in  the  aggregate  ? 

Witness.  This  is  my  private  business.  If  it  is  proper  and  fight,  I 
will  answer  the  question  ;  but  I  do  not  understand  the  exact  position' 
cf  these  things.  I  am  a  brisker  and  a  banker,  doing  a  large  business, 
and  I  have  taken  a  great  deal  of  paper  of  various  parties. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  you  have  already  stated  that.  The  ques- 
tion has  a  bearing  upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  with 
the  sale  and  purchase  of  this  property,  showing  the  relations  which 
existed  between  Mr.  Latham  and  yourself.  The  committee  desire  to 
know  v;hat  the  amount  of  this  paper  was  in  the  aggregate,  according 
to  the  best  of  your  recollection. 

Witness.  K  the  committee  decide  that  I  must  answer  the  question, 
I  will  do  so.     I  have  no  feeling  at  all  about  it. 

Mr.  Florence.  I  suggest  to  the  chairman  whether  we  ought  to  in* 
quire  into  and  communicate  arrangements  between  any  officer  of  the 
government  and  a  broker,  if  such  arrangements  have  no  relation  to 
the  transaction  we  are  investigating? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  my  purpose  to  show  that  this  examination  has 
a  bearing  upon  the  investigation  which  has  been  ordered  by  the 
House. 

Mr.  Florence.  Governor  Floyd  may  have  had  a  business  transac* 
tion  in  his  capacity  as  a  citizen,  a  resident  of  the  State  of  Virginia, 
which  may  have  been  continued  after  he  became  Secretary  of  War. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  purpose  to  carry  the  examination  into 
details  ;  I  merely  wish  to  get  at  the  facts. 

Witness.  As  a  broker  and  banker  it  is  my  business  to  deal  in  paper, 
and  I  do  not  wish  to  have  my  business,  which  is  generally  considered 
private,  made  public,  unless  it  is  absolutely  necessary. 

Mr,  Florence.  The  committee  may  exercise  their  judgment  whether 
this  is  or  is  not  testimony,  after  it  is  taken. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  strike  it  out,  if  the  committee  think',  after 
they  have  heard  it,  that  it  is  not  pertinent  to  the  investigation. 

Witness,   Understand  that  I  am  willing  to  answer  the  question. 


116  TESTIMOKY. 

The  committee  decided  to  require  an  answer  to  the  qtiestioz]. 

Witness.  I  may  have  had  §29,000  or  $25,000  of  his  paper ;  tli^ 
probahility  is  that  I  have  not  had  that  much— we  will  say  $20,000  worth. 

Question.  How  much  of  his  paper  have  you  had  during  the  months 
of  March,  April,  May,  June,  and  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  think  between  $15,000  and  $20,000. 

Question.  Paper  which  you  as  a  broker  cashed? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  It  was  brought  to  you  by  Mr.  Latham  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  not  understand  at  that  time  from  Mr.  Latham 
that  he  was  the  agent  of  Governor  Floyd  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  1  did  not. 

Question.  What  interest  did  he  state  to  you  he  had  in  this  paper? 

Answer.  He  stated  he  wanted  the  money  ;  that  is  all  I  know. 

Question.  Did  he  state  he  wanted  the  money  for  Governor  Floyd? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  not  know  it  was  for  Governor  Floyd  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  When  did  you  receive  the  ^IIS^OOO  paid  by  the  govern- 
ment for  this  property  ? 

Answer.  My  impression  as  that  I  received  it  on  the  9th  day  of  July, 

Question.  From  whom  ? 

Answer.  From  George  Irving,  in  Mr.  Somebody's  office  up  Broadway, 

Question.  You  received  the  draft? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  draw  the  draft  yourself? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  gave  it  to  the  president,  or  the  vice-president  of 
the  American  Exchange  Bank. 

Question.  Where  you  kept  your  account? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  gold  was  worth  something  to  me  ;  I  gave  it  to  the 
bank  and  took  their  check,  and  they  drew  the  gold. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  with  the  $115,000  ? 

Answer.  I  used  it  in  my  business.  My  cash  account*  that  day 
reached  between  five  and  six  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Question.  Have  you  that  money  yet  in  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  have  a  great  portion  of  it. 

Question.  How  much  of  it? 

Answer.  I  am  out  of  business  now,  but  I  have  assets  of  various 
kinds.  I  used  this  $115,000  in  my  business,  and  considered  it  as 
property  I  could  use  whenever  I  wished. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  any  part  of  this  money  to  the  government  ia 
the  purchase  of  the  Fort  Snelling  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  advance  any  of  this  money  for  the  purchase  of 
the  New  Bedford  property? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  that  this  money  iis  yours? 

Answer.  I  do,  sir  ;  I  consider  it  is  part  of  my  assets.  I  owe  money j, 
and  have  money  due  me. 

Question.  Has  any  person  any  interest  in  the  $115,000  you  derived 
from  the  government? 


TESTIMONY.  117 

Answer.  George  Irving  has  ;  I  owe  liim  some  money. 

Question.  How  much? 

Answer.  About  $50,000.     He  has  my  note  for  it. 

Question.  When  did  you  give  him  that  note? 

Answer.  In  December  or  January  last ;  I  think  it  was  in  December 
of  this  year,  when  closing  up  my  accounts  and  going  to  Albany. 

Question.  Did  you  give  it  to  him  in  person? 

Answer,  I  ^ave  it  to  his  lawyer,  Mr.  Wetmore, 

Question.  You  say  you  owe  Mr.  Irving  about  $50,000  ;  what  is 
the  understanding  between  Mr.  Irving  and  yourself  in  relation  to  that 
money? 

Answer,  He  has  my  note  for  it,  payable  a  year  after  date. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  written  or  verbal  understanding  with 
him  that  he  was  to  loan  you  this  money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  paid  any  interest  upon  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Is  interest  to  be- paid  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  say  you  advanced  $30,000  or  $35,000,  and  owe  Mr. 
Irving  about  $50,000  ;  please  account  for  the  difference  between  the 
amount  of  these  sums  and  the  $115,000  which  he  handed  over  to  you? 

Answer.  There  was  a  mortgage  of  $15,000,  $16,000,  or  $18,000 
upon  the  property,  which  I  paid  in  order  to  get  a  clear  title  for  the 
government.     The  government  owes  $85,000  upon  the  property  yet. 

Question.  You  paid  the  mortgage  of  fifteen,  sixteen,  or  eighteen 
thousand  dollars  ? 

Answer.  I  gave  William  C.  Wetmore  the  money  to  do  it. 

Question.   Was  that  after  you  received  the  $115,000? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  the  day  I  received  it.  I  gave  him  a  check, 
my  impression  is,  before  I  got  the  $115,000. 

Question.  Did  you  advance  the  $20,000  or  $25,000  before  you  re- 
ceived the  $115,000? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  many  days? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  exactly. 

Question.   When  was  it  that  you  advanced  $20,000? 

Answer.  It  may  have  been  in  June  ;  my  impression  is  it  was  in 
June. 

Question.  Will  not  your  check  book  show? 

Answer.  It  would  have  shown,  but  I  have  not  got  it  with  me.  I 
have  my  other  books  here. 

Question.  See  if  your  check  book  will  not  show  when  that  amount 
was  advanced  to  Wetmore  ? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  it  was  advanced  to  Mr.  Wetmore 
the  I5th  or  20th  of  June. 

Question.  Was  it  advanced  in  one  amount? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  it  was. 

Question.  You  paid  the  mortgage  of  fifteen  thousand  and  odd  hun- 
dreds dollars  upon  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


118  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  What  else  did  you  pay  ? 

Acswer.  I  gave  Irving  some  $10,000  or  $12,000,  and  paid  William 
C.  Wetmore  $700  or  $800. 

Question.  When  did  you  give  Irving  that  money  ? 

Answer.  After  I  got  the  money. 

Question.  What  time? 

Answer.  Within  the  next  current  sixty  days  ;  whenever  he  called 
for  it. 

Question.  Did  you  give  it  to  him  in  one  sum  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  think  not ;  my  impression  is  in  different  sums. 

Question.  In  how  many  different  sums? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Question.  Did  you  make  those  payments  in  checks  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Within  the  next  sixty  days  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  On  occasions  when  he  called  for  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  hut  I  did  not  pay  them  out  of  that  $115,000. 
That  money  went  into  my  hank  account. 

Question.  Can  you  recollect  in  ahout  what  amounts  you  made  those 
payments  to  Irving? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  cannot ;  as  many  as  four  payments. 

Question.  Your  check  book  will  show? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  your  check  books  here? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  were  subpoenaed  to  bring  them? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Why  did  you  not  bring  them? 

Answer.  I  have  not  got  any.  These  are  all  the  books  I  have, 
(exhibiting  some  bank  books.) 

Question.  You  have  just  stated  that  your  check  books  would  show 
the  payments  you  made  Irving? 

Answer.  I  have  not  any  check  books.  When  I  went  to  Albany 
I  made  up  my  mind  that  I  had  been  doing  a  large  usurious  business 
in  Wall  street ;  that  I  had  been  making  money  by  taking  usury  ; 
and,  aiter  I  became  a  legislator,  I  came  back  and  said,  "  Good  bye, 
Johnny,  I  will  destroy  everything  ;  I  do  not  want  anything  to  do 
with  these  books  hereafter." 

Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  have  destroyed  your  check 
books  tor  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  July,  August,  and 
September,  1857? 

Answer.  Since  tlie  first  of  January,  1856. 

Question.  Destroyed  all  of  them  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  With  what  banks  did  you  keep  your  accounts  during  these 
months  ? 

Answer.  The  Marine  Bank,  Bank  of  the  Republic,  and  Bank  of  the 
State  of  New  York.  You  can  readily  see  by  these  remaining  books 
that  I  liave  here  the  amount  of  money  I  received  and  used. 

Question.  Would  those  check  books  have  shown  the  amounts,  and 
to  whom  you  had  drawn  checks  during  those  months  ?  _^ 


TESTIMONY.  1 1 9 

Answer.  Sometimes  they  would,  and  sometimes  they  would  not. 

Question.  You  have  destroyed  your  check  books  ? 

Answer.  From  1856  up  to  the  time  I  went  to  Albany. 

Question.  You  have  destroyed  your  check  books  for  -the  two  years 
of  1856  and  1857? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  were  they  destroyed  ? 

Answer.  I  think  in  the  month  of  January,  or  it  may  have  been  iu 
the  month  of  February  ;  my  impressions  are  that  it  was  in  the  month 
of  February. 

Question.  Was  it  after  this  investigation  was  ordered  by  the  House 
of  Representatives  ? 

Witness.  I  should  think  not.     When  was  it  ordered  ? 

The  Chairman.  Early  in  February. 

Witness.  My  impressions  are  that  it  was  before. 

Question.  Are  you  not  certain  that  they  were  destroyed  after  you 
had  notice  that  there  had  been  an  investigation  ordered  by  the  House, 
in  relation  to  this  matter  ? 

Witness.  Well,  I  am  ready  to  answer  that  question  ;  that  is,  is  that 
a  fair  question  to  put  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  ask  you  whether  you  are  not  certain  that  the 
books  were  destroyed  after  this  investigation  was  ordered  ? 

Mr.  Florence.  I  think  it  involves  no  question.  I  destroy  my  check 
books. 

The  Chairman.  J  ask  Mr.  Schell  whether  he  did  not  destroy  the 
books  after  he  learned  that  this  investigation  had  been  ordered? 

Witness.  I  think  it  was  about  the  20th  of  February  I  destroyed 
them. 

Question.  When  you  learned  that  this  investigation  had  been 
ordered,  had  it  any  influence  upon  your  mind  in  inducing  you  to 
destroy  the  books  ? 

Answer.  It  may  have  had ;  but  I  do  not  think  it  had  much,  from 
one  simple  fact :  I  sent  for  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore,  and,  says  I  to 
him,  ''I  am  going  to  destroy  my  checkbooks  ;  I  do  not  know  any  of 
these  things,  and  I  do  not  know  what  the  result  will  be,  and  I  will 
not  have  my  usurious  transactions  shown  up  to  the  public."  Says  he, 
*'  They  cannot  call  for  those  books." 

Question.  After  this  investigation  was  ordered  you  consulted  with 
your  lawyer,  William  C.  Wetmore,  and  destroyed  all  these  books  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  became  of  the  checks  ? 

Answer.  I  have  always  been  in  the  habit  of  destroying  my  checks, 
more  or  less. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  have  destroyed  the  checks 
drawn  by  you  during  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  July, 
and  August,  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  August,  1856,  too. 

Question.  When  did  you  destroy  those  checks? 

Answer.  At  the  same  time  I  destroyed  the  check  books. 

Question.    During  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  July, 


120  TESTIMONY. 

or  August,  1857,  did  you  draw  any  check  in  favor  of  Mr.  K.  W. 
Latham  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  often  drawing  checks  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Latham. 

Question.  I  ask  you  whether  you  drew  any  in  his  favor  during 
those  months  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  During  those  months  did  you  draw  any  check  in  his 
favor  by  which  he  derived  any  benefit  from  the  sale  of  this  Wilkins' 
Point  property  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   You  did  not? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  he  in  any  manner,  directly  or  indirectly,  interested 
in  the  proceeds  of  that  sale? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  that  he  was  interested  ? 

Answer.  How  could  I  know  it.  Mr.  George  Irving  bought  this 
property,  and  sold  it,  and  transacted  the  business. 

Question.  Do  j^ou  not  know  that  he  was  interested,  from  his  state- 
ments or  from  Irving' s  statements  to  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  that? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  in  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  July, 
or  August,  draw  any  check  or  checks  in  flavor  of  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  always  been  in  the  habit  of  loaning  him 
money. 

Question.  How  much? 

Answ-er.  I  cannot  tell  how  much. 

Question.  Did  you  take  any  memorandums? 

Answer.  His  memorandum  checks. 

Question.  He  does  not  owe  you  anything? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  much  did  you  let  him  have  during  those  months? 

Answer.  When  I  say  he  does  not  owe  me  any  money  now,  he  does 
owe  me  some  ;  he  owes  me  $8,000,  or  $10,000,  probably. 

Question.  What  security  have  you  for  it? 

Answer.  I  have  not  any. 

Question.  Is  General  Wetmore  a  man  of  property,  or  is  he  in  in- 
solvent circumstances  ? 

Answer.  That  I  do  not  know  anything  about ;  I  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  doing  a  great  deal  of  business  with  him  and  having  his  checks? 

Question.  Had  you  a  great  deal  of  business  with  him  and  his  checks 
during  the  months  I  have  referred  to? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  inform  you  that  he  had  any  interest  in  the  sale 
of  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  to  the  government? 

Answer.  That  I  do  not  know  ;  he  was  talking  about  it  a  good  deal. 

Question.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  talking  between  him  and  your- 
self in  relation  to  it  ? 


TESTEVIONY.  121 

Answer.  He  was  talkinor  about  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  Did  you  ever  loan  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore 
any  money  on  the  ground  that  you  supposed  that  he  was  interested 
directly  or  indirectly  in  this  Wilkins'  Point  affair  ? 

Witness.  How  am  I  going  to  understand  that  question? 

Mr.  Hall.  The  question  is,  Did  you  loan  IMr.  Wetmore  any  money 
during  these  months,  or  at  any  subsequent  time,  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  some  interest,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of 
Wilkins'  Point  to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  did;  still 

Mr.  Hall.  Was  there  ever  any  conversation  between  you  which  led 
you  to  suppose  that  his  interest  in  that  sale  might  be  an  element  of 
his  responsibility? 

Answer.  It  certainly  had  some  influence  with  me  ;  but  still  I  do 
not  know  the  fact  that  Mr.  Wetmore  was  engaged  in  this  matter. 

By  Mr.  Florence.  Because  you  had  some  reason,  or  supposed  you 
had  some  reason,  to  believe  that  he  was  in  some  way  interested  in  this 
sale,  you  had  an  idea  that  you  would  get  your  money  back  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

By  the  Chairman.  Did  you  not  lend  him  money  during  the  months 
of  June,  July,  or  August,  to  be  reimbursed  out  of  the  money  to  be 
received  from  the  government  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  outside  what  I  advanced  to  George  Irving. 

Question.  What  was  the  understanding  between  Mr.  Irving  aod- 
yourself  in  relation  to  these  advances  ? 

Answer.  That  I  was  to  be  paid  $5,000  commission. 

Question.  When  was  that  agreed  to  ? 

Answer.  In  the  month  of  July,  that  I  was  to  be  paid  |5,000. 

Question.  When  did  you  make  the  understanding? 

Answer.  In  the  month  of  July. 

Question.  What  time  in  that  month  ? 

Answer.  It  must  have  been  very  near  the  first.  It  was  the  latter 
part  of  June  or  the  first  of  July. 

Question.  Where  did  you  have  this  understanding  with  him  ? 

Answer.  My  impressions  are  that  I  went  in  Prosper  M.  Wetmore's 
office*  no,  I  may  have  talked  with  his  lawyer,  William  C.  Wetmore  ; 
my  impression  is,  I  did  talk  with  him. 

Question.  Then  it  was  with  his  lawyer,  and  not  with  Irving,  that 
you  had  this  understanding? 

Answer.  That  is  my  impression. 

Question.  Have  you  no  interest  in  the  proceeds  of  that  purchase? 

Answer.  No_,  sir. 

Question.  None  whatever? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Directly,  or  indirectly? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  And  do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  this  $50,000  which 
you  say  Irving  has  your  note  for,  is  a  bona  fide  indebtedness  from  you 
to  him,  in  which  nobody  but  Irving  has  any  interest? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of.     I  owe  Mr.  George  Irving  $51,700. 

Question.  Is  it  a  6G/ia/(ie  indebtedness,  in  which  nobody  but  Irving 
has  any  interest  ? 


122  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  None  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Do  jou  not  know  whether  Mr.  Mather  has  an  interest  in 
this  purchase  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Has  he  never  conversed  with  you  in  relation  to  the  pur- 
chase ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  During  what  months  ? 

Answer.  In  July,  1  think. 

Question.  After  you  had  received  the  $115,000  or  before? 

Answer.  Both  after  and  before. 

Question.  State  the  substance  of  the  conversation  he  had  with  you  ? 

Answer.  That  would  be  impossible.  You  can  readily  see  that  from 
the  amount  of  business  I  was  doing  I  had  no  attention  to  pay  to  any- 
thing. A  man  might  come  into  my  office  and  talk  to  me,  and  it 
would  go  in  one  ear  and  out  at  the  other. 

Question.  Did  Mather  state  to  you  that  he  took  an  interest  in  the 
sale  of  this  property  by  Irving  to  the  government? 

Answer.  He  may  have  done  that. 

Question.  Did  you  not  know  that  he  took  an  interest  in  it  of  your 
own  knowledge,  as  well  as  from  his  statements  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Question.  According  to  the  best  of  your  recollection  what  did  he 
say  to  you  in  the  month  of  July,  1857,  in  relation  to  the  sale  of  this 
property  to  the  government? 

Witness.  In  what  way. 

The  Chairman.  In  any  way  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  this  pro- 
perty or  its  sale  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  When  did  he  inform  you  that  this  property  had  been 
purchased  by  the  government? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  I  got  my  information  from  George 
Irving  about  that. 

Question.  About  the  purchase  by  the  government? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  my  impression. 

Question.  Did  you  at  any  time,  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  ^le  of 
this  property  to  the  government,  give  any  portion  of  it  to  Mr.  Mather, 
for  his  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  swear  that  he  had  no  interest  in  the  purchase  and 
sale  of  that  property  of  your  own  knowledge  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not  know  that  he  had. 

Question.  Did  you  not  understand  from  him  that  he  had? 

Answer.  He  may  have  told  me  so. 

Question.  Did  he  not  tell  you  that  he  had  an  interest  in  it,  through 
Mr.  Irving,  in  the  month  of  July,  or  at  any  other  time? 

Answer.  Well,  I  do  not  remember  about  it. 

(^)ue8tion.  Was  he  not  to  your  knowledge  appointed  by  the  War 
Department  to  sell  some  property  of  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  was  told  when  I  was  in  Washington, in  the  Fort  Snelling 
case,  that  he  was. 


TESTIMONY.  123 

Question.  Did  you  not  know  he  had  an  interest  ?  Did  he  not  tell 
you  he  had  an  interest,  through  Mr.  Irving,  in  this  purchase  of 
Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  did  ;  but  still  he  may  have  told  me. 

Question.  Your  relations  with  Mr.  Mather  have  been  of  an  intimate 
character  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  have  they  been  so  ? 

Answer.  About  two  years. 

Question.  Had  you,  during  the  months  of  March.  April,  May^  June, 
and  July,  1857,  business  relations  with  Mr.  Mather? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  In  real  estate? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  negotiating  paper  for  him  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.    • 

Question.  In  what  real  estate  ? 

Answer.  Fort  Snelling. 

Question.  Outside  of  that,  any  other  ? 

Witness.  Is  that  a  proper  question  ? 

The  committee,  after  consultation,  decided  that  it  was. 

Witness.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  I  had. 

Question.  Had  you  any  interest  in  this  Wilkins'  Point  property 
with  him? 

Answer.  I  was  not  interested  in  it. 

Question.  Do  you  say  he  had  no  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of.  He  might  have  had  with  Irving, 
for  aught  I  know. 

Question.  Did  you  not  understand  from  Irving  that  there  were 
some  other  men  interested  in  the  purchase  with  him? 

Answer.  I  did  not  so  understand  from  Irving  ? 

Question.  Did  you  not  so  understand  from  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  did  or  not? 

Question.  Did  you  so  understand  from  anybody? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  I  did 

By  the  Chairman.  You  ought  to  remember,  Mr.  Schell.  It  must 
be  fresh  in  your  memory  whether  any  other  parties  were  or  were  not 
interested  in  that  sale. 

Witness.  There  may  have  been.     I  do  not  know  the  facts. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  from  Prosper  M.  Wetmore's  statements 
to  you,  or  the  relations  he  had  with  you,  that  he  was  interested  in 
that  sale  to  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not. 

Question.  Will  you  swear  that  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  was  not  inter- 
ested in  the  purcliase? 

W  itness.  How  could  I  do  that  ? 

Question.  What  induced  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  to  take  so  much  in- 
terest in  this  purchase  and  sale  ? 

Answer.  He  lives  down  there.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 
He  lives  within  a  mile  of  George  Irving  ;  so  he  has  told  me.  I  have 
never  seen  Willett's  Point  or  Fort  Snelling  either. 


124  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  That  note  which  you  gave  Irving  is  payable  in  one  year  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  there  not  some  understanding  between  you,  orally  or 
in  writing,  in  relation  to  its  payment 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Wait  one  moment.  Or  that  other  parties  than 
George  Irving  have  an  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  with  me  at  all. 

Question.  With  any  one  else? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  You  went  with  George  Irving  to  receive  the  $115,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  make  any  representation  to  him  upon  which  you 
based  your  desire  to  receive  the  money  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  I  was  in  want  of  money. 

Question.  Did  he,  at  the  time  and  place  wher^he  received  the  draft, 
endorse  it  over  to  you  ? 

Answer.  I  think  we  called  into  somebody's  office,  where  he  en- 
dorsed it;  but  it  may  have  been  otherwise. 

Question.  You  received  the  draft  from  your  lawyer,  Mr.  William 
C.  Wetmore,  who  brought  it  on? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  my  impression  is  the  draft  was  mailed  to  Mr. 
Gillmore. 

Question.  Your  lawyer,  Mr.  Wetmore,  informed  you  that  the  draft 
had  been  sent  on  ? 

Witness.  No,  sir  ;  not  my  lawyer,  Mr*  Irving's  lawyer  ;  he  brought 
me  the  information. 

Question.  You  sent  him  on  to  close  up  the  business,  and  on  his 
return  he  informed  you  that  the  dralt  was  on  its  way  to  Lieutenant 
Gillmofe? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  have  an  understanding  that  the  draft  was  not  to 
be  paid  over  to  Irving  until  you  saw  him,  and  could  be  with  him  to 
receive  it,  in  order  to  protect  yourself  in  the  advances  you  had  made  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  What  induced  you  to  go  with  Irving  to  Lieutenant  Gill- 
more's  office  to  get  this  draft  ? 

Answer.  I  wanted  the  money. 

Question.  You  wanted  the  money  to  reimburse  yourself? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  It  was  that  induced  you  to  go  with  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  offered  Mr.  Irving  |5,000  if  he  would  give 
me  back  the  money  I  had  advanced. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  Before  they  came  to  Washington  to  get  the  money  ;  I  was 
afraid  there  might  be  something  about  it  I  did  not  know. 

By  Mr.  Florence.  You  were  afraid  you  might  lose  your  money  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  I  wanted  the  money,  too. 

By  the  Chairman.  When  was  it  that  you  first  received  intelligence 
that  the  government  would  take  the  property  at  $200,000? 


TESTIMOXY.  125 

.  Answer.  I  think  William  C.  Wetmore,  or  Irving,  or  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore,  showed  me  a  contract  of  acceptance  by  the  government. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  it  was  in  June. 

Question.  Was  it  not  on  the  same  day,  or  immediately  after,  you 
had  advanced  the  $9,000? 

Answer.  Oh,  no  ;  I  advanced  1 10,000  before  I  heard  of  the  accept- 
ance by  the  government.  It  must  have  been  advanced,  possibly,  in 
May. 

Question.  What  security  had  you  at  the  time  you  made  the  advance? 

Answer.  Not  any.  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  advancing  $200,000 
without  security.  I  knew  George  Irving  was  good  ;  I  was  satisfied 
about  that. 

Question.  Had  you  any  security  when  you  advanced  this  $10,000? 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  nor  when  I  advanced  the  $20,000,  or  the  $18,000, 
to  pay  that  mortgage. 

Question.  Did  you  not  make  these  advances  subject  to  an  agreement 
that  this  $115,000  was  to  be  paid  to  you,  that  you  might  be  protected 
in  your  advances  ? 

Answer.  The  money  was  paid  over  to  me. 

Question.  Did  you  not  make  these  payments  with  the  understand- 
ing that  the  money  was  to  be  paid  over  to  you  ? 

Answer.  That  was  not  specified  ;  I  had  no  understanding. 

Question.  Was  there  no  understanding  between  Prosj^er  M.  Wet- 
more and  you  to  that  effect  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  there  was  ;  still  there  may  have  been.  I 
did  not  talk  much  about  it. 

Question.  You  desired  to  be  secured  in  having  your  advances  paid 
back  to  you  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  became  very  much  frightened  that  the  govern- 
ment did  not  fulfill  its  contract. 

Question.  You  would  have  been  willing  to  have  given  Irving 
$5,000  to  have  got  out  of  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  and  would  have  been  mighty  glad  to  do  it. 

Question.  Were  you  in  Washington  during  the  months  of  March 
and  April,  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  call  at  the  War  Department? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question,  Who  did  you  see? 

Answer.  Governor  Floyd. 

Question.  Did  you  see  Governor  Floyd  in  the  month  of  April? 

Answer.  If  I  was  in  town  I  saw  him.  I  do  not  know  whether  I 
was  in  town  or  not ;  Willard's  books  will  show  that. 

Question.  If  you  were  in  town  in  April  you  saw  Governor  Floyd  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  see  him  in  relation  to  the  intended  purchase  of 
this  property  by  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  had  no  conversation  with  him  in  reference  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 


126  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  When  did  you  hear  that  the  government  had  agreed  to 
purchase  from  Irving  at  $200,000? 

Answer.  I  think  that  was  in  June,  and  Mr.  William  C.  Wei  more, 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  or  George  Irving  told  me. 

Question.  In  relation  to  what  business  had  you  an  interview  with 
Governor  Floyd  in  April  ? 

Answer.  I  always  go  to  see  him  ;  I  have  been  to  see  him  now  ;  I 
had  no  business  with  him.     I  have  been  to  see  the  President. 

Qaestioa.  Had  you  any  business  with  him  in  the  month  of  April, 
1857?  Were  you  not  informed  by  Latham  that  the  government  had 
purchased,  or  agreed  to  purchase,  this  property? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  was. 

Question.  Are  you  certain  that  you  did  not  learn  it  from  him  ?  Bear 
in  mind  that  the  government  accepted  Irving's  proposition  on  the 
28th  ot  April. 

Answer.  I  did  not  know  that;  I  thought  it  was  in  June. 

Question.  Were  you  not  informed  by  Latham  at  the  time  that  the 
government  had  accepted  the  proposition  of  Irving  ? 

Answer.  No_.  sir,  I  was  not.  I  know  it  from  the  fact  of  their  show- 
ing me  the  contract — George  Irving  or  one  of  the  two  Wetmores. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  I  thought  the  operation  was  in  June ;  I  must  have  seen  it 
probably  within  a  week  after  it  was  done. 

Question.  After  you  saw  that  contract  did  you  not  state  to  Governor 
Floyd,  when  you  were  on  here,  that  you  had  made  some  advances  to 
effect  the  purchase  of  this  land  by  the  parties  who  had  sold  it  to  the 
government? 

Answer.  I  came  on  here  with  the  papers  in  the  month  of  June,  I 
think.  ■  L  was  very  much  alarmed  about  my  money,  and  I  came  on 
here  and  went  to  the  War  Department,  and  saw  the  Secretary  of 
War,  and  said :  ''  Sir,  I  have  brought  on  the  titles  to  this  property 
at  Wilkins'  Point.  I  have  got  frightened,  and  want  to  know  whether 
these  are  all  right.  I  want  my  money  back  that  I  have  been  advanc- 
ing." Says  he  :  '^  The  department  has  nothing  to  do  with  anything 
of  that  kind.  The  government  has  bought  the  property.  You  have 
got  to  make  your  title  clear  to  the  Attorney  General,  and  whenever 
your  title  is  perfected,  and  the  Attorney  General  certifies  to  it,  you 
will  be  paid."  That  was  in  June,  and  I  think  it  was  the  only  con- 
versation I  had  with  him  on  the  subject. 

Question.  Did  you  not  inform  Latham  that  you  had  made  these 
advances,  and  had,  to  that  extent,  an  interest  in  this  purchase  before 
the  title  was  passed  to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  may  have  done  so. 

Question.  Do  you  not  recollect  having  done  so? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Did  you  never  ask  him  to  look  after  and  protect  your  in* 
terests  with  the  government  on  account  of  these  advances  you  had 
made  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  I  ever  had  any  conversation  with 
him  about  it. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  after  your  conversation  with  Floyd? 


TESTIMONY.  127 

Answer.  I  went  back  to  New  York,  and  went  to  see  McKeon. 
Question.  You  say  you  had  the  papers  with  you  when  you  came  in  ; 
what  papers  ? 

Answer.  The  deeds  of  Willet's  Point. 
Question.  To  whom  ? 

Answer.  To  the  government ;  that  is  my  impression  ;  I  never  looked 
at  them. 

Question.  Who  told  you? 
Answer.   William  C.  Wetmore. 
Question.  You  returned  to  New  York? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  did  not  see  the  Attorney  General  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  think  I  went  to  see  him,  but  I  do  not  know 
what  I  said  to  him. 

Question.  Did  you  go  and  see  McKeon? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  go  to  see  McKeon;  I  went  back  and  told 
William  C.  Wetmore  that  those  papers  were  not  satisfactory. 
Question.  Why  were  they  not  satisfactory  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,   I  am  no  lawyer  ;  William  C.  Wetmore 
then  took  the  pap;.T8  to  get  them  in  proper  order. 
Question.  Did  you  go  to  see  McKeon  at  all? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  when  Wetmore  came  on  here  he  telegraphed  to 
me. 

Question.  Did  Wetmore  come  on  here  to  close  up  the  transaction? 
Answer.  That  was  my  impression. 
Question.  Was  not  that  your  understanding  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  In  the  month  of  July,  1857,  were  you  the  owner  of  real 
estate  in  your  own  right  in  the  city  of  New  York? 

Witness.  I  cannot  see  what  bearing  that  question  has  upon  the 
case. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  it  has  a  bearing. 

Mr.  Florence.  I  do  not  see  what  personal  matters  have  to  do  with 
the  investigation.  (After  consultation,  the  committee  decided  to  re- 
quire an  answer  to  the  question.) 

Answer.  1  really  do  not  know  ;  I  think  I  was. 
Question.  To  what  amount  ? 
Answer.  It  may  have  been  to  $5,000  or  $10,000. 
Question.  Do  you  not  know  whether  you  owned  property  in  your 
own  name  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  have  owned  it  to  the  extent  of  $5,000  or  $10,000  ;  and 
I  think  I  do  now,  in  my  own  name.  It  is  in  out  of  town  lots. 
Question.  Did  you  own  more  than  that? 
Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  am  positive  I  did  not. 

Question.  If  you  had  been  required  to  give  real  estate  security  in 
your  own  name,  in  July,  1857,  to  the  amount  of  $10,OliO,  could  you 
have  done  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  could  not  have  done  it. 

Question.  Did  you  loan  your  brother  Augustus  any  of  this  money 
you  received  from  the  government  ? 
Answer.  Not  one  dollar. 
Adjourned. 


128  TESTIMONY. 

Wednesday,  May  12,  1858. 

Committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present — The  chairman,  (Hon.  John  B.  Haskin,)  Mr.  Hopkins, 
Mr.  Florence,  Mr.  Hall,  and  Mr.  Wood. 

Richard  Schell,  recalled.     Examined  by  the  Chairman  : 

Question.  You  stated,  in  your  examination  the  other  day,  that  Mr. 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore  brought  you  a  book  containing  all  the  appro- 
priations for  fortifications  ;  do  you  know  where  Mr.  Wetmore  got  that 
book? 

Witness.  No,  sir.     Did  I  state  that  I  got  it  from  Mr.  Wetmore? 

The  Chairman.  You  did. 

Witness.  Well,  I  think  so  ;  but  I  cannot  swear  positively  to  that. 

Question.  You  stated  that  you  gave  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  the  first 
$1,000  that  was  paid.  Did  you  give  it  to  him  on  his  own  account,  or 
on  account  of  George  Irving? 

Answer.  On  account  of  George  Irving,  as  I  understood. 

Question.  Did  you  then  have  an  understanding  with  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore  as  to  the  commission  you  were  to  receive  for  advancing  the 
money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  after  this  was  it  that  you  did  have  an  under- 
standing? 

Answer.  I  think  I  gave  him  the  $1,000  in  April,  and  I  think  it  was 
in  May  or  June  that  I  had  the  understanding. 

Question.  Had  you  the  understanding  when  you  advanced  the 
$9,000? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  not. 

Question.  When  was  it  that  you  advanced  the  $9,000,  according  to 
the  best  of  your  recollection  ? 

Answer.  I  think  in  May  ;  it  was  either  in  May  or  June. 

Question.  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  gave  his  check  some  time  in 
April ;  was  it  after  the  date  of  that  check  that  you  advanced  the 
$9,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  Wetmore's  check. 

Question.  Who  did  you  advance  it  to? 

Answer.  To  Mr.  Wetmore  on  account  of  George  Irving.  No,  I 
did  not  advance  it  to  Mr.  P.  M.  Wetmore.  I  went  over  and  paid  it 
to  William  C.  Wetmore. 

Question.  The  $9,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  did  he  pay  that  $9,000  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  Possibly  in  June. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  R.  W.  Latham  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  when 
he  brought  you  the  book  containing  the  appropriations  for  fortifica- 
tions ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 


TESTIMONY.  129 

Question.  Was  he  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  at  any  time  when  Mr. 
Wetmore  spoke  to  you  in  relation  to  advancing  this  money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  When  R.  W.  Latham  asked  you  whether  the  government 
was  purchasing  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  did  you  not  tell  him 
that  it  was,  and  converse  with  him  upon  the  subject  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Question.  Are  you  certain  that  you  did  not? 

Answer.   That  is  my  impression. 

Question.  Your  impression  is  that  you  did  not? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  not  Mr.  R.  W.  Latham  offer  himself  to  you  or  to 
Mr.  Wetmore  to  expedite  the  negotiations  for  the  sale  of  this  property 
to  the  government? 

Answer.  Not  to  me.  What  he  may  have  said  to  Mr.  Wetmore  I 
do  not  know. 

Question.  You  have  testified  that  you  are  not  now  in  business,  and 
you  have  stated  that  you  have  a  great  part  of  the  $115,000  received 
from  the  government  on  account  of  this  purchase  in  your  business  ; 
what  did  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Answer.  I  meant  to  say  that  I  had  a  good  deal  of  business  on  hand 
yet  to  close  up. 

Question.  That  is  your  answer  to  the  question? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  stated  that  you  gave  your  note  for  iSljTBS  75  to 
William  C.  Wetmore  for  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  my  impression. 

Question.  And  you  thought  in  December? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Are  you  certain  that  it  was  not  later  than  that  ? 

Answer.  I  said  it  was  either  in  December  or  January.  I  think  it 
was  not  later  than  January. 

Question.  You  have  stated  that  you  conversed  with  William  C. 
Wetmore  in  relation  to  destroying  your  check  books,  in  consequence 
of  the  large  usurious  business  you  had  been  doing  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  give  him  the  note  before  you  had  that  conversa- 
tion with  him  ? 

Answer.   Before. 

Question.   How  long  before  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  it  was  thirty  days  before. 

Question.  Did  you  give  him  that  note  before  you  went  to  Albany 
in  January  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  came  down  from  Albany  in  January. 

Question.   And  then  you  gave  him  the  note? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  was  it  after  you  had  been  in  Albany,  attending 
to  your  senatorial  duties,  that  you  returned  to  New  York  and  gave 
him  the  note? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  fifteen  days  ;  it  may  have  been  twenty. 

Question.  Had  you  an  understanding  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore, 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549 9 


130  TESTIMONY. 

George  Irving,  K.  W.  Latham,  or  William  C.  Wetmore,  that  the 
$115,000  was  all  to  he  paid  over  to  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  had  no  understanding  with  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more  or  li.  W.   Latham  ;  George  Irving  paid  me  over  the  money. 

Question.  Had  you  an  understanding  with  him  to  that  effect? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation,  or  did  you  ever  make  any 
agreement,  with  these  gentlemen,  or  either  of  them,  as  to  the  dispo- 
sition of  this  money  after  it  should  he  paid  hy  the  government  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Irving  give  you  authority  to  receive  that  money, 
and  to  keep  it  in  your  husiness  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Irving  gave  me  no  authority,  excepting  this :  the 
money  was  payable  in  New  York,  and  the  day  it  was  paid  I  went  up 
to  Lieutenant  Gillmore's  office  with  Mr.  Irving,  and  after  he  re- 
ceived the  draft,  he  endorsed  it  over  to  me. 

Question.  That  is  all? 

Answer.  That  is  all. 

Question.  With  whom  have  you  had  an  understanding  that  you 
are  to  pay  interest  on  this  note  of  yours  for  §51,768  75? 

Answer.  I  have  had  an  understanding  with  William  0.  Wetmore  ; 
he  is  the  man  I  have  done  all  the  talking  with.  My  note  is  drawn 
without  interest,  hut  it  is  an  error. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  understanding  with  William  C.  Wet- 
more upon  that  subject? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  do  you  know  that  you  advanced  $20,000  to  pay  off 
the  mortgages  before  the  $115,000  was  paid  to  you  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Willam  C.  Wetmore  came  to  me  that  morning  and 
said  he  had  agreed  to  pay  that  amount  of  money,  and  wanted  it  ; 
that  is,  the  morning  I  got  the  money.  I  did  not  go  up  to  Mr.  Gill- 
more's, I  think,  until  about  11  o'clock. 

Question.  Then  it  v/as  on  that  morning  that  you  advanced  the 
$20,000? 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  there  was  still  a  mortgage  upon  the  property  of 
$17,000  or  $18,000. 

Question.  You  have  stated  that  you  advanced  $20,000  or  $25,000, 
in  addition  to  the  $10,000. 

Answer.  That  was  before  I  received  the  money. 

Question.  How  do  you  know  tliat? 

Answer.  Only  from  the  simple  lact  that  I  got  the  check  on  the  9th 
of  July. 

Question.   And  wlien  did  you  pay  this? 

Answer.  My  impression  is,  on  the  2d  or  3d  of  July;  it  was  before 
the  9th  of  July. 

Question.  Mr.  Wetmore  paid  those  mortgages  on  the  3d  of  July; 
was  it  on  that  day  that  you  advanced  the  money? 

Answer.  I  advanced  the  money  the  day  he  paid  the  mortgages. 

Question.  Did  you  never  inform  your  brotlier  Augustus  of  your 
advancing  this  money  on  account  of  tlie  purchase  of  this  Wilkins' 
Point  property  ? 


TESTIMONY.  131 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  never. 

Question.  Do  you  and  him  live  in  the  same  house? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  have  for  years  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  came  on  here  with  the  papers  connected  with  this 
title  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  In  the  month  of  June  last? 

Answer.  Yes,,  sir. 

Question.  Mr.  Wetmore  came  on  here  on  the  3d  or  4th  of  July  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  part  of  June  were  you  here? 

Answer.  It  must  have  heen  in  the  latter  part. 

Question.  Was  Mather  here  at  that  time  with  you  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  saw  or  knew  of. 

Question.  Did  you  call  on  the  Attorney  General  when  you  were 
here  in  June,  or  on  Mr.  Gillett? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  not.  I  called  upon  the  Attorney  General, 
but  I  do  not  think  I  submitted  the  papers  to  him,  because  th^  Secre- 
tary of  War  told  me  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  could  not 
do  anything  unless  the  Attorney  General  was  satisfied  with  the  title; 
and  then  he  glanced  over  the  papers  I  had,  and  said  that  he  did  not 
think  the  Attorney  General  would  take  those  papers. 

Question.  Did  you  then  call  on  the  Attorney  General  ? 

Answer.  I  called  on  him,  but  my  impression  is  that  I  said  to  him, 
"  I  have  some  papers  here,  and  find  that  they  are  informal." 

Question.  What  was  the  informality? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect.  I  was  very  mad  about  it,  because  I 
wanted  the  money  very  much. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Mather  call  on  the  Attorney  General  at  your  re- 
quest ? 

Answer.  I  saw  him  in  New  York  and  told  him  that  it  was  very  im- 
portant to  have  the  money,  and  if  he  was  going  to  Washington  that 
I  would  like  liim  to  attend  to  it  for  me. 

Question.   Did  he  attend  to  it  ? 

Answer.  He  said  he  would  do  all  he  could. 

Question   Did  he  see  the  Attorney  General  in  relation  to  it  for  you  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  ;  my  impression  is,  he  did. 

Question.  Are  you  not  a  banker  or  broker  in  New  York  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  consider  myself  such. 

Question.  Have  you  not  an  office  in  the  Merchants'  Exchange  ? 

i^nswer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  do  very  little  business,  if  any  ;  I  say  I  am  not 
doing  any  business,  but  you  know  I  am  closing  up  my  things  as  fast 
as  I  can, 

^»)uestion.  Your  office  is  in  the  same  place  it  was  in  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  why  the  passing  of  the  title  of  the  Wilkins' 
Point  property  was  taken  from  McKeon? 

Answer.  1  do  not ;  but  my  impression  was,  that  it  was  taken  from 
him  because  I  wanted  the  money  very  much. 


132  •  tESTBlONY. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  You  wanted  the  business  hastened  7 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Florence.  It  was  in  his  hands  kept  without  action  ? 
WnNESS.  It  looked  so  to  me.  I  learned  from  Mr.  William  C. 
Wetmore  that  a  part  of  the  title  papers  were  in  the  hands  of  Mr. 
McKeon,  and  I  called  at  his  office  and  found  there  a  gentleman  by 
the  name  of  Joachimsen,  who  had  been  on  here  with  them,  but  had 
done  nothing,  and  when  I  wanted  the  papers  so  as  to  have  the  matter 
fixed  and  the  money  paid  over,  he  was  at  Newport. 
Question.   Who,  Mr.  McKeon? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  Joachimsen.  I  think  I  telegraphed  him  to  come 
on  to  New  York  ;  that  I  would  make  it  to  his  interest  if  it  could  be 
done  legally,  for  I  wanted  the  money  so  much,  and  that  I  would  have 
given  him  %^  ,000  if  he  had  called  in  my  office  and  said  be  would  do  it. 
Question  by  the  Chairman.  Was  money  in  such  demand  then  ? 
Answer.  It  was  not  tight  then,  but  it  began  to  show  indications  of 
tightness.  I  could  borrow  it  at  seven  per  cent.,  but  I  could  get  from 
one-eighth  to  one-quarter  per  cent,  a  day  for  it. 

Question.  Have  you  since  January  last  kept  a  bank  account  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  keep  it  now. 
Question.   Have  you  your  bank  book  since  that  time  ? 
Answer.   Yes,  sir  ;  but  I  have  not  got  it  here. 
Question.  Have  you  your  checks  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  your  check  books  for  1853,  1854,  and  1855? 
Answer.  I  do  cot  think  I  have. 

Mr.  Florence.  I  wish  tbe  witness  would  go  on  with  his  narrative 
in  relation  to  the  communication  he  had  with  Mr.  McKeon 's  office  in 
New  York.     He  says  he  telegraphed  to  Joachimsen  ;  what  followed  ? 
Witness.  That  is  all  about  it. 

Mr.  Florence.  And  was  his  absence  the  reason  why  the  title  papers 
were  taken  from  the  office  of  tbe  United  States  district  attorney,  Mr. 
McKeon  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Did  you  not  get  on  without  Mr. 
McKeon,  or  Mr.  Joachimsen? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  Mr.  Wetmore  said  that  he  could  do  the  business. 

Question.  You  bave  stated  that  you  paid  George  Irving  $10,000  or 

$12,000,  on  account  of  this  money  which  you  received  on  tbe  9th  day 

of  July  ;  did  you  pay  any  part  of  that  to  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  for 

George  Irving? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  1  did  ;  my  impression  is  that  I  paid  it  to 
George  Irving. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  when  you  paid  it  ? 

Answer.  It  is  my  impression  I  paid  it  in  July  and  August. 

Question.  In  one  or  more  payments  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  as  he  called  for  it. 

Question.  How  many  payments  do  you  recollect  having  made  him  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not  recollect. 

Question.  As  many  as  tour  ? 

Answer.  There  may  have  been. 


TESTIMONY.  133 

Question.  Where  did  you  make  those  payments? 

Answer.  At  my  office. 

Question.  Have  you  paid  him  anything  on  account  of  the  $51,768  75 
you  received  from  him,  over  and  above  the  $10,000  or  $12,000  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Duestion.  You  stated  that  you  have  discounted  some  notes  for  Gov- 
ernor Floyd,  at  the  instigation  of  R.  W.  Latham.  Have  those  notes 
been  paid  ? 

Witness.  Well,  if  that,  gentlemen,  is  a  proper  question,  I  will 
answer  it  with  pleasure.  It  is  my  private  business,  and  I  do  not  think 
the  committee  have  any  right  to  inquire  into  it. 

By  Mr.  Hopkins.  Has  the  question  any  connexion  with  the  purchase 
ofWilkins'  Point? 

Witness.  No,  sir  ;  none  at  all. 

Mr.  Florence.  I  object  to  this  whole  thing.  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  saying,  as  I  did  the  other  day,  that  I  cannot  for  my  life  see  what 
the  question  has  to  do  with  this  transaction,  or  why  the  private  busi- 
ness of  gentlemen  must  be  brought  up  in  connexion  with  it ;  but,  Mr. 
Schell,  you  have  already  testified  that  you  did  discount  these  notes, 
and  I  submit  to  you  whether  it  would  not  be  proper  now  to  answer 
whether  they  have  been  paid  or  not.  It  is  my  opinion  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  committee  to  review  this  testimony  and  strike  out  all  re- 
lating to  private  transactions  which  has  no  bearing  upon  this  investi- 
gation. I  would  prefer  that.  I  do  not  think  that  we  are  sitting  here 
as  an  inquisition  to  inquire  into  the  private  transactions  of  any 
citizens.  I  think  we  have  travelled  out  of  the  way  altogether,  and 
consumed  tim3  unnecessarily.  I  think,  as  I  said  to  the  chairman 
yesterday,  that  we  ought  to  review  the  testimony  and  see  how  far  we 
have  gone  beyond  the  duties  we  were  appointed  to  fulfil. 

Mr.  Wood.  In  regard  to  that  portion  of  the  remarks  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  which  relate  to  striking  out  parts  of  the  tes- 
timony, I  think  it  would  be  improper  for  the  committee  to  do  anything 
of  the  kind.  It  is  our  duty  to  report  all  the  evidence  we  have  to  the 
House. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  state  to  the  committee  that  I  have  no  objec- 
tions to  imputations  being  cast  upon  the  questions  I  deem  it  proper  to 
propound  to  the  witness.  I  want  it  distinctly  understood  that  the 
witness  has  testified  that  in  the  months  of  April,  May,  June,  and 
July,  1857,  he  discounted  paper  for  Governor  Floyd,  through  Robert 
W.  Latham. 

Mr.  Florence.  The  Chairman  will  do  me  the  justice  to  say  that  I 
objected  to  the  question  which  drew  that  out  at  the  time  it  was  asked. 

Witness.  And  so  did  I. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  it  was  the  most  pertinent  question  put 
during  this  investigation  ;  that  is  my  opinion  about  the  question. 

Mr.  Florence.  1  did  not  know  what  object  the  Chairman  had,  and 
I  said  that  it  did  not  strike  me  that  it  was  a  pertinent  question  ;  but, 
I  to  the  witness,]  you  answered  it. 

Witness.  I  objected  to  it,  however. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  The  gentlemen  of  the  committee  will  do  me  the 
justice  to  acknowledge,   that  up  to  this  time  I  have  interposed  no 


134  TESTIMONY. 

objection  to  any  of  the  questions  which  they  have  submitted  to  the 
witnesses.  As  the  immediate  representative  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
I  have  been  willing,  as  I  know  he  has  been  desirous,  that  the  widest 
range  should  be  given  to  the  investigation  in  relation  to  this  purchase: 
but  I  think,  in  all  reason,  that  the  questions  should  be  confined  to 
the  matter  under  investigation.  If  the  discounting  of  these  notes  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  this  property,  it  S  a 
proper  subject  of  inquiry,  and  the  question  should  be  answered  ;  but^ 
if  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  transaction,  it  is  private  business 
which  I  do  not  think  ought  to  be  brought  in  here. 

The  Chairman.  I  submit  to  the  committee  how  we  are  to  discover 
the  relation  which  such  a  transaction  as  this  may  bear  to  the  matter 
under  investigation,  unless  a  question  is  allowed  to  be  put  which  will 
draw  it  out.  The  witness  has  testified  that  he  discounted  these  notes; 
now  I  want  to  know  whether  they  have  been  paid. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  I  only  object  to  the  question  because  it  is  dragging 
the  i^rivate  business  transactions  of  gentlemen  into  this  investigation^ 
which  may  have  no  possible  connexion  with  it ;  and  I  suggest  to  the 
chairman  that  he  modify  his  question  so  as  to  make  it  bear  some  rela- 
tion to  the  subject  under  investigation. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  was  absent  from  the  city  at  the  time  of  the  former 
examination  of  this  witness,  and  therefore  do  not  know  v^hat  connexion 
this  question  has  with  his  evidence  given  then ;  and  I  should  like  to 
have  an  opportunity  to  read  it  over  before  deciding  as  to  the  propriety 
of  the  question. 

The  CnAiRiMAN.  In  the  months  of  June  and  July,  1857,  the  witness 
discounted  Governor  Floyd's  paper  to  the  amount  of  $20,000  for  Mr. 
Robert  W.  Latham,  Governor  Floyd's  private  agent.  This  was  about 
the  time  that  the  $115,000  was  paid  by  the  order  of  Governor  Floyd 
to  Richard  Schell  for  this  property,  and  I  desire  to  knov;-  whether 
that  paper  was  discounted  out  of  this  money  which  Mr.  Schell  received 
from  the  government.  And  I  submit  further,  I  care  not  who  it  may 
affect,  that  the  Secretary  of  War  employed  Richard  Schell,  through 
his  private  agent,  as  his  broker,  when  he  understood  that  he  was  the 
broker  of  George  Irving,  and  the  question  is  pertinent  as  going  to 
show  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  purchase  of  the 
property  and  the  character  of  the  whole  transaction.  Mr.  Latham 
has  been  subpa:;naed,  and  he  has  seen  fit  not  to  answer  the  summons. 
When  Mr.  Latham  comes  here,  as  I  have  no  doubt  he  will,  he  may 
clear  up  the  whole  surroundings  of  this  transaction  ;  but  in  his  ab- 
sence we  must  get  at  the  facts  the  best  way  we  can.  If  the  gentle- 
men of  the  committee  overrule  the  question,  the  inference  to  the 

country  will  be  that  Governor  Floyd 

Mr.  Florence.  I  submit  that  we  are  not  discussing  what  the  conse- 
quences may  be,  or  what  inferences  the  country  may  draw  from  this 
investigation. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  have  stated  my  object  in  asking  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Florence.  The  committee  will  recollect  that  Mr.  Schell  declared, 
on  his  previous  examination,  that  the  discounting  of  these  notes  was 


TESTBIONY  135 

a  transaction  made  without  reference  to  anything  connected  with  the 
purchase  of  this  property. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  said  that  he,^  did  not  know  Governor 
Floyd  in  the  transaction;  that  the  paper  was  brought  to  him  by 
Robert  W.  Latham,  and  he  discounted  it. 

Mr.  Floeexce.  That  is  what  I  remarked ;  and  hence,  haviug  no 
relation  to  this  purchase,  according  to  his  testimony,  before  this  com- 
mittee under  oath  that  it  had  no  relation  whatever  to  this  purchase, 
but  that  this  paper  came  to  him  through  the  usual  business  avenues ; 
if  he  is  to  be  believed,  it  is  but  just  to  say  or  to  think  that  the 
Secretary  of  War  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  transaction,  and  that 
the  paper  discounted  for  Mr.  Latham,  or  for  the  Secretary  of  War,  if 
you  choose,  or  for  any  other  parties,  was  done  in  the  usual  business 
way. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  I  wish  to  make  this  personal  explanation  :  Governor 
Floyd's  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Preston,  owns  an  immense  property  in 
Washington  county,  Virginia,  worth  one  to  two  million  of  dollars;  a 
salt  property  ;  and  these  notes  may  have  been  discounted  for  his 
account.  In  addition  to  that  Governor  Floyd  and  his  brother  have 
a  large  coal  property  and  salt  property  in  Kentucky  ;  and  if  that 
money  had  been  necessary  to  their  operations  there,  would  it  be 
an  uncommon  thing  for  Governor  Floyd  to  apply  for  a  loan  to 
Mr.  Schell  ?  Still,  if  the  discounting  of  these  notes  can  in  any  way 
be  connected  with  the  purchase  by  the  government  of  the  property  at 
Wilkins'  Point,  I  open  the  door  wide  to  have  it  appear  ;  but  until  it 
is  shown,  I  do  not  think  we  treat  the  Secretary  of  War  right  in  thus 
prying  into  his  private  matters. 

Mr.  Hall.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  inquire  of  Mr.  Schell  whether 
he  knows,  or  has  any  reason  to  believe,  that  the  discounting  of  these 
notes  was  in  any  way  connected  with  the  purchase  of  this  property  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  submit  whether  it  is  not  a  pertinent  question  to 
ask  whether  these  notes  have  been  paid  ? 

Mr.  Florence.  The  question  might  affect  a  man's  business  reputa- 
tion. Suppose  the  notes  have  not  been  paid,  in  consequence  of  the  late 
revulsion,  but  have  been  renewed.  I  submit  whether  it  is  proper  that 
a  private  business  of  this  kind  should  be  published  to  the  world  to  be 
thought  a  dereliction  or  pecuniary  defalcation,  which  has  grown  out 
of  circumstances  over  which  they  had  no  control?  We  have  no  right 
to  sit  here  as  an  inquisition  into  the  private  affairs  of  gentlemen, 
whether  they  be  high  or  low,  simply  because,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
official  duties,  they  have  had  some  association  with  brokers.  Indeed, 
I  cannot  recollect  what  association  Mr.  Schell  had  with  the  matter, 
except  to  loan  the  money,  and  it  seems  he  was  the  most  frightened 
man,  and  the  most  likely  to  be  injured. 

At  the  request  of  the  committee,  the  witness  here  retired- to  give 
them  an  opportunity  to  further  consult* 

The  Chairman.  I  wish  to  state  briefly  to  the  committee  my  views  in 
reference  to  Gov.  Floyd's  conduct  in  this  matter.  We  find  that  the 
negotiations  for  the  purchase  of  this  property  were  taken  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  engineer  department,  about  the  Slst  of  March,  by  the 
Secretary  of  W  ar^  and  that  two  or  three  days  after  an  offer  to  sell  the 


136  TESTIMONY 

property  to  the  government  was  made  by  Mr.  George  Irving.  This 
Mr.  Irving,  the  evidence  shows,  had  not  a  dollar  in  the  world  to  ad- 
vance towards  the  purchase  of  the  property  which  he  thus  offered  to 
sell  to  the  government ;  and  the  money  which  he  did  pay  on  it,  the 
$1,000  and  the  $9,000,  was  advanced  by  Mr.  Richard  Schell,  who, 
for  the  time,  was  employed  as  his  banker  and  broker,  through  Pros- 
per M.  Wetmore.  We  find,  at  this  very  time,  Mr.  Richard  Schell 
was  the  banker  and  broker  of  Grov.  Floyd.  The  time  when  this  pur- 
chase could  have  been  made  by  the  government  at  a  saving  of  $85,000 
or  $100,000,  was  allowed  to  pass  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  who,  upon 
a  letter  signed  by  Irving,  submitting  an  offer  to  sell  the  property  to 
the  government,  never  having  seen  Irving,  but  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  some  third  parties,  he  accepted  the  offer  of  Irving,  and 
agreed  to  pay  $200,000  for  the  property — $50,000  more  than  the  ap- 
propriation made  by  Congress  for  that  purpose.  I  say  these  are  cir- 
cumstances which  throw  a  suspicion  upon  the  bona  fides  of  this  tran- 
saction, showing,  as  they  do,  a  combination  between  the  parties  who 
sold  to  the  government,  and  the  government  itself  through  its  agents. 

As  to  showing  the  relation  which  the  question  I  put  the  witness 
bears  to  the  subject  under  investigation:  suppose,  if  you  please,  that 
the  money  with  which  Schell  discounted  this  paper  of  Gov.  Floyd, 
was  the  identical  money  which  he  received  on  the  9th  of  July  from 
the  government,  is  not  that  a  circumstance  to  go  to  the  House  in  con- 
nexion with  this  investigation.  I  also  submit  that  the  simple  fact  as 
to  whether  those  notes  have  been  paid  or  not,  is,  considering  the  ques- 
tions already  put  and  answered,  necessary  for  the  justification  of  Gov- 
ernor Floyd,  if  his  skirts  are  clean  in  this  transaction.  Suppose  these 
notes  were  given  with  the  understanding  that  they  were  not  to  be  paid  ; 
that  this  transaction  was  to  blot  them  out  of  existence,  should  we  not 
ascertain  it  and  report  it  to  the  House.  For  the  protection  of  Governor 
Floyd's  honor,  if  for  nothing  else,  it  is  necessary  that  the  witness 
should  answer  this  question.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  question 
shall  be  overruled  if  the  judgment  of  the  committee  is  against  it.  I 
have  no  feeling  about  it. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  think  that,  after  what  the  Chairman  has  said,  not 
having  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Schell  when  he  was  first  before  the 
committee,  it  would  be  well  to  pass  it  over  for  the  present.  From 
the  explanation  the  Chairman  has  just  given,  I  think  it  may  be  ad- 
visable to  have  the  question  answered,  but  I  would  like  first  to  see 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  Schell,  given  in  his  previous  examination. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  another  thing  in  this  transaction  to  which 
I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee,  and  it  is  this:  Mr. 
Schell,  about  the  20th  of  February,  after  this  investigation  had  been 
ordered  by  the  House;  after  he  knew  that  he  would  be  brought  here 
as  a  witness,  and  that  his  books  would  be  called  for,  deliberately  de- 
stroyed his  check  books  for  18i()  and  1857.,  after  consulting  his  lawyer, 
William  C.  Wetmore,  in  relation  to  it. 

Mr.  Wood.  It  is  necessary  that  I  should  have  an  opportunity  of 
reading  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Schell  at  his  first  examination. 

Mr.  Florence.  Mr.  Schell  said  that  the  reason  he  destroyed  his 
check  books  was  that  he  had  been  doing  a  usurious  business,  and 


TESTIMONY.  137 

that  he  concluded  to  give  it  up  when  he  went  up  to  Albany^  and 
made  up  his  mind  to  destroy  all  evidences  of  his  business. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  decision  of  the  committee  as  to  the 
question?  I  think  that  it  is  due  to  the  honor  of  Grovernor  Floyd  that 
it  should  be  answered. 

Mr.  HoPKixs.  I  do  not  object  to  the  widest  and  most  comprehensive 
inquiry  into  everything  connected  with  this  transaction,  but  I  do  not 
think  we  have  a  right  to  investigate  the  private  concerns  of  citizens 
■  -f  this  country  having  no  relation  to  the  facts  and  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  purchase  of  this  property  by  the  government. 

Mr.  Hall.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  that  the  consideration  of  the 
question  be  postponed  until  to-morrow  at  10^  o'clock,  by  which  time 
the  gentlemen  who  were  not  present  at  Mr.  Schell's  first  examination 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  examine  his  testimony. 

After  some  further  discussion,  without  taking  a  vote  on  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Hall,  the  witness  was  recalled,  and  the  following  question  pro- 
pounded to  him : 

Mr.  Hall.  Did  you,  or  did  you  not,  say  in  your  first  examination 
before  this  committee  that  this  transaction  of  discounting  the  notes 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Willet's  Point  property  sale  to  the  gov- 
ernment? 

Witness.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  said  so,  and  I  say  so  now. 

Mr.  Hall.  Have  you  had  any  reason  to  suppose  that  the  discounting 
of  these  notes  had  any  connexion  with  the  Willet's  Point  transaction? 

Answer.  I  had  no  reason. 

Question.  Were  not  some  of  these  notes  discounted  before  the  pur- 
chase by  the  government  of  the  property? 

Answer.  I  should  think  that  the  transactions  between  Latham  and 
me  commenced  in  July  or  August,  1856. 

Question.   And  come  down  to  August,  1857? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  come  down  until  to-day. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  When  was  the  purchase  made? 

The  Chairman.  On  the  28th  of  April. 

Witness.  I  commenced  discounting  these  notes  before  the  Presi- 
dential election  ;  these  Floyd  notes. 

Question.  And  you  had  been  in  the  habit  of  discounting  these 
notes  through  Latham  all  this  time? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hall.  Why  not  now  waive  all  objection  to  the  question  put  by 
the  Chairman?  I  do  not  see  what  objection  the  witness  can  have  to 
answering  it. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  The  only  objection  I  have  is  of  precedent. 

Witness.  I  think  it  is  a  bad  precedent. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  I  tnink  it  violates  a  very  sacred  right  of  the  citizen. 

Witness.  I  deny  having  had  anything  to  do  with  the  Secretary. 

Mr.  Wood.  If,  as  the  witness  says,  he  has  been  discounting  these 
notes  for  the  last  eighteen  months,  I  do  not  see  what  objection  he  can 
have  to  answer  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  committee  ready  to  depide  whether  the 
question  shall  be  answered  or  not  by  the  witness  ? 

Mr.  Hopkins.  1  do  not  see  that  we  have  any  right  to  put  the  ques- 


138  TESTIMONY. 

tion.  That  this  business  was  commenced  before  Governor  Floyd  be- 
came Secretary  of  War  shows  that  it  had  no  connexion  with  the 
purchase  of  this  property. 

Mr.  Hall  If  the  matter  had  remained  upon  the  evidence  as  it  was 
before  Mr.  Schell  made  additions  to  it  a  few  minutes  ago,  I  should 
myself  htive  been  less  inclined  to  object  to  the  question,  but  as  he 
•  now  testifies  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  discounting  these  notes 
at  a  period  anterior  to  this  purchase,  I  do  not  see  that  any  object  can  be 
attained  by  having  the  question  answered,  whilst  it  is  open  to  the  ob- 
jection that  it  is  inquiring  into  private  matters.  Mr.  Schell' s  last 
statement  breaks,  in  my  judgment,  the  connexion  between  the  ques- 
tion and  the  subject  under  investigation,  and  therefore  I  incline  to  the 
idea  that  it  had  better  be  waived. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  In  this  whole  movement  those  who  might  be  sup- 
posed to  be  the  particular  friends  of  Governor  Floyd  have  interposed 
no  objection  to  the  widest,  fullest,  and  freest  inquiry  into  this  trans- 
action. By  an  express  agreement  of  our  delegation  no  objection  was 
made  in  the  House  when  this  investigation  was  proposed,  and  I  will 
not  now  prevent  by  my  objection  the  fullest  investigation  into  the 
particulars  of  this  purchase. 

The  Cliairman.  I  submit  that  if  this  question  is  overruled^  it  will 
prevent  me  from  showing  its  relevancy  to  the  subject  matter  under 
investigation  by  other  questions  which  would  make  the  connexion  be- 
tween the  two.  Suppose  that  with  this  money  received  on  the  9th  of 
July,  Schell  had  discounted  Governor  Floyd's  notes^  with  a  private 
understanding  that  the  notes  were  never  to  be  paid. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  I  would  not  object  to  a  question  which  had  for  its 
object  the  ascertainment  of  that. 

The  question  was  taken,  ^^  Shall  the  question  be  put?"  and  it  was 
decided  in  the  negative. 

Yeas :  The  Chairman. 

Nays:  Messrs.  Hopkins,  Hall,  Florence,  and  Wood. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Did  you  see  Mr.  E.  W.  Latham  in 
relation  to  this  Wilkins'  Point  purchase  in  the  month  of  July  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  he  in  New  York  on  the  8th  or  9th  of  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was. 

Question.   He  was  there  in  the  month  of  July? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  discount  any  of  this  paper  of  Governor  Floyd 
for  him  on  the  9th,  or  subsequent  to  the  9th  day  of  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  not  discount  a  note  of  Governor  Floyd  for 
$10,000,  or  get  it  cashed  in  Wall  street? 

Answer.  1  liave  never  seen  a  note  of  Governor  Floyd's  to  the  amount 
of|10,000. 

Question.  Did  you  not,  subsequent  to  the  receipt  of  the  $115,000, 
discount  any  notes  for  Governor  Floyd? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.   Did  you  sec  Latham  in  the  month  of  June,  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


TESTIMONY.  139 

Question.  Frequently? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  In  the  month  of  May,  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   In  the  months  of  March  and  April,  1857? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Frequently? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  on  those  occasions  converse  with  him  in  relation 
to  the  sale  of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  did  ;  still  I  may  have  done  so;  I  do  not 
rememher. 

*Question.  Did  you  inform  him,  during  either  of  those  months,  that 
you  had  made  advances,  or  was  about  making  advances,  to  Mr.  Irving 
on  account  of  it  ? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  I  did ;  still  I  could  not  swear 
positively  to  it. 

Question.  Did  you  not,  at  any  time,  during  the  months  of  March, 
Aprils  May,  June,  or  July,  1857,  request  him  to  look  after  the  pro- 
tection of  your  interests  here  at  Washington  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  he  had  or  had  not  any  interest  in 
this  transaction  ? 

Answer.   I  do  not. 

Question.  Did  you  never  understand  from  Prosper  M.Wetmore,  or 
John  C.  Mather,  or  George  Irving,  that  he  had  any  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  I  cannot  state  that,  from  one  simple  fact ;  my  business  was 
so  large  that  I  had  not  much  time  to  devote  to  anybody  ? 

Question.  You  ought  to  remember  something  connected  with  this 
transaction  ;  can  you  not  remember  whether  in  these  months  you  did 
or  did  not  understand  from  some  one  of  these  parties  that  he  had  an 
interest  in  this  purchase? 

Answer.  My  impression  is,  I  did  not. 

Question.  Are  you  certain  you  did  not? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  am  not  positive. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  Your  impression  is  you  did  not? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Florence.  You  say  your  business  was  large,  and  you  did  not 
give  much  attention  to  individual  matters,  but  that,  so  far  as  your 
memory  serves  you,  you  were  not  so  informed? 

Answer.  I  was  not. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  You  said  you  commenced  discounting 
Governor  Floyd's  paper  in  July,  1856,  and  continued  down  to  the 
present  time  ;  you  did  so,  I  suppose,  to  a  large  amount  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  To  what  amount  between  July,  185G,  and  April,  1857? 

Answer.  1  caunot  tell  exactly,  but  I  should  think  about  $25,000. 


140  TESTIMONY. 

Friday,  March  26,  1858. 
Theophylact  B.  Bleecker  sworn : 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  (Mr.  Haskin.) 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  New  York. 

Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  am  an  auctioneer  and  real  estate  broker. 

Question.  Are  you  in  partnership  ? 

Answer.  Not  at  present  ? 

Question.  Were  you  formerly  a  member  of  the  firm  of  T.  B.  Bleecker 
&  Burling?  • 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  the  real  estate 
business? 

Answer.  I  have  been  engaged  in  it,  individually,  since  1832 ; 
twenty- five  or  twenty-seven  years. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  good  judge  of  the  value  of 
property  in  the  city  of  Nov/  York  and  vicinity  ? 

Answer.  I  do  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  some  parts  adjoining, 
Brooklyn. 

Question.  There  was  a  certificate  of  the  value  of  the  property  at 
Wilkins'  Point  sent  to  the  War  Department,  signed  T.  B.  Bleecker  & 
Burling  ;  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  under  what  circumstance 
that  certificate  was  signed  with  your  name,  who  signed  it,  and  all 
you  know  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection.  Colonel  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more  called  on  me  in  the  spring  of  1857,  as  he  stated  at  the  insti- 
gation of  James  B.  Miller,  and  said  that  he  knew  I  was  acquainted 
with  the  value  of  real  estate,  and  wanted  me  to  give  him  a  certificate 
as  to  the  value  of  property,  which,  as  I  understood  at  the  time,  was 
in  Westchester  ;  I  had  no  idea  it  was  at  Wil kins'  Point.  I  told  him 
that  I  could  not  give  the  certificate,  because  I  was  not  acquainted  with 
the  property  ;  that  if  it  was  anywhere  on  the  island  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  I  could  judge  of  its  value  ;  but  not  knowing  it,  I  declined 
to  certify  to  its  value*.  1  mentioned  this  the  same  day,  or  the  day  after, 
to  my  then  partner,  Mr.  Burling,  and  he  said  he  was  acquainted  with 
the  property  and  could  certify  to  its  value.  I  do  not  know  whether 
I  told  Mr.  Wetmore,  or  whether  he  called  again  upon  me  ;  I  think  I 
mentioned  it  to  him  to  talk  to  my  partner  ;  he  did  so,  and  Burling 
gave  him  a  certificate,  and  told  me  afterwards  that  he  had  signed  the 
name  of  tlie  firm. 

Question.  Did  your  partner  state  the  value  of  it  at  the  time? 

Answer.  I  think  he  said  it  was  worth  $1,500  an  acre;  lam  not 
sure. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  time  this  occurred  ;  was  it  in  April, 
1857,  the  date  the  ])aper  bears? 

Answer.  It  may  have  been  about  that  time,  but  it  does  not  appear 
to  have  occurred  so  long  ago. 

Question.  You  did  not  sign  it  or  approve  of  the  valuation  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  he  told  me  he  had  done  it. 


TESTIMONY.  141 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  propose  to  have  you  go 
and  examine  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Xo,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  knowwhether  your  partner  examined  the  property? 

Answer.  I  think  he  did  not. 

Question.  Did  any  one  call  upon  your  partner  or  yourself  beside 
Mr.  Wetmor(3? 

Answer.  ]Mo,  sir  ;  not  at  that  time. 

Question.   At  any  time? 

Answer.  I  think  Mr.  Irving  called  afterwards,  but  I  was  not  ac- 
quainted with  him.  He  inquired  for  Mr.  Bulling,  and  I  had  no  con- 
versation with  him.  I  am  pretty  confident  that  my  partner  did  not 
examine  the  property. 

Question.   What  was  paid  for  signing  the  certificate? 

Answer.  I  think  .§50  was  paid  to  each  of  those  who  signed  it. 

Question.  Did  your  partner  receive  $50? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  are  not  acquainted  with  the  value  of  this  property? 

Answer.  I  am  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  any  other  facts  connected  with  this  trans- 
action? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  anything  further  than  I  have  stated. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Wetmore  state  who  was  interested  in  the  sale 
of  this  property  to  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  from  him  or  any  other  parties  who 
were  interested  in  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  think  he  stated  tliat  he  had  no  difficulty  in 
getting  others  to  sign  the  certificate,  but  he  wanted  the  names  of  those 
who  were  well  known. 

Question    Where  does  Mr.  James  M.  Miller  reside  ? 

Answer.  I  think  his  office  is  in  Maiden  Lane ;  he-  lives  at  White 
Plains. 

Question.  What  is  your  partner's  name? 

Answer.  Ehenezer  Gr.  Burling. 

Question.  You  said  all  who  signed  the  certificate  were  paid  $50  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Irving  paid  it ;  Mr.  Miller,  I  think,  paid  it  to  the 
concern  ;  and  I  suppose  he  received  it  for  himself  and  the  others. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  this  property  having  been  in  the  market 
for  sale  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not.  It  was  for  sale  some  years  ago,  before 
Mr.  De  Ruyter's  death.  I  thought  the  property  was  in  Westchester 
when  Wetmore  came  to  me. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  see  you  more  than  once 
upon  the  subject  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  he  came  to  the  office  to  see  me  after 
I  told  him  I  could  not  certify  to  it ;  but  I  think  I  may  have  met  with 
him  on  the  street. 


142  TESTIMONY. 


Anthony  J.  Bleecker  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  New  York  city. 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  am  an  auctioneer  and  real  estate  agent. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  business  ? 

Answer.  All  my  life  ;  thirty  or  forty  years. 

Question.  Have  you  been  engaged  as  extensively  in  that  business  as 
any  real  estate  auctioneer  or  agent  in  New  York. 

Answer.  I  suppose  so  ;  more  than  any  others. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  value  of  property  in  the  city 
of  New  York  and  Long  Island  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  generally. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  value  of  property  in  the 
town  of  Flushing? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  resided  there^  and  owned  property  there. 

Question.  Be  kind  enough  to  state  what  you  know  of  the  valuation 
of  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  and  what  the  intrinsic  value  of  it 
was  in  April,  1857? 

Answer.  About  that  time  General  Wetmore  called  upon  me  and 
asked  me  if  I  could  give  him  a  certificate  as  to  the  value  of  this 
point,  stating  the  amount  per  acre  at  which  he  wished  me  to  estimate 
it,  which  was  some  $1,500,  $1,600,  or  $2,000.  The  price  he  fixed  was 
so  large  that  I  told  him  I  could  not  certify  to  it.  I  told  him  distinctly 
that  I  could  not  bring  my  ideas  of  the  value  of  the  property  up  to  any 
such  price  ;  tkat  I  could  have  bought  it  three  or  four  years  ago  for 
$35,000  ;  and  that  I  did  not  suppose  that  in  so  short  a.  time  there  had 
been  sucli  a  great  rise  in  its  value.  He  said  that  he  did  not  ask  me 
to  give  him  an  opinion,  but  that  I  would  De  well  paid  for  a  certificate. 
I  told  him  that  I  could  not  give  him  a  certificate.  I  was  surprised  at 
the  great  difierence  in  the  price  between  what  I  had  always  thought 
the  property  to  be  worth  and  that  he  wanted  me  to  give  him  a  certifi- 
cate that  it  was  worth  then.  The  thing  passed  from  my  mind,  until 
about  a  month  after,  when  Mr.  Schell,  the  collector,  called  upon  me 
at  my  office  to  know  if  I  had  given  a  valuation  of  the  property,  or  was 
acquainted  with  its  value.  I  told  him  that  I  had  refused  to  certify  to 
the  high  ])rices  fixed  as  the  value  of  the  property,  and  had  refused 
G-eneral  Wetmore,  and  referred  to  parties  who  knew  more  about 
it  than  I  did  ;  tliat  tliere  might  have  been  some  great  rise  in  the  value 
of  the  property  which  I  did  not  understand,  and  could  not  enter  into, 
and  referred  liim  to  the  late  Mayor  Mickle,  to  Mr.  Cryder,  and  to  gen- 
tlemen owning  around  there,  who  had  been  neiglibors  of  mine  when  I 
lived  in  that  vicinity  ;  and  also  referred  him  to  Wissmann,  who  knew 
most  about  its  value.  The  matter  ended  there,  until  afterwards  I 
lieard  it  was  sold  to  the  government. 

Question.  Did  the  collector  want  you  to  sign  the  certificate  ? 
Answer.  He  did  not  say  so  ;  he  wanted  to  know  what  I  had  done 
in  the  premises  ;  I  told  him  ;  he  did  not  tell  me  his  views  ;  I  suppose 
he  wanted  to  be  in  possession  of  the  opinion  of  an  expert,  so  as  to  ad- 


TESTIMONY.  143 

vise  about  the  sale  ;  but  whether  it  was  sold  at  that  time  or  not,  I  can- 
not tell. 

Question.  Have  you  lived  in  the  neighborhood  of  this  property? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  lived  at  a  place  opposite  and  a  little  below, 
called  Throg's  Neck  Point.  Wilkins'  Point  is  around  in  a  little  bay 
further  east  than  mine,  but  quite  near  it. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  lived  there  ? 

Answer.  I  owned  it  for  three  or  four  years,  and  have  lived  on  it  for 
two  years.     I  sold  off  a  part  of  it  to  Mr.  Irving. 

Question.  What  did  gentlemen  owning  property  around  this  piece 
hold  it  at  ? 

Answer.  They  put  high  prices  on  it.  I  sold  my  front  at. a  pretty 
high  price  ;  I  got  |500  an  acre  for  it  ;  I  had  fifty  acres,  and  I  got  for 
them  $2.5,000. 

Question.  What  was  the  value  of  vour  property  compared  with  that 
of  Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.  I  would  rather  have  my  place  for  a  residence,,  because  it 
is  on  Long  Island  Sound. 

Question.  Did  you  adjoin  Cryder's. 
.  Answer.    I  was  next   but   two  to  that  place  :  I  was  next  to  Mr. 
Hagerty's. 

Question.  What  were  those  places  considered  worth  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  they  are  held  at  $1,000  an  acre  ;  but  they  all 
front  on  the  navigable  sound. 

Question.  What  is  the  character  of  the  land  at  Wilkins'  Point  and 
the  land  in  the  rear  of  it  ? 

Answer.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  low  land  and  swampy  ground 
connected  with  the  main  land,  and  that  deterred  my  partner  and  my- 
self from  buying  it.  We  went  there  some  five  years  ago  with  the 
idea  of  buying  it,  and  they  then  wanted  either  $30,000  or  J;^IJ5,000  for 
it,  and  I  was  in  favor  of  taking  hold  of  it ;  but  Mr.  William  Weeks, 
who  was  then  my  partner,  and  who,  I  think,  went  with  me,  deterred 
me  by  his  oi)inion  that  there  was  too  much  poor  land  about  it  to  make 
the  average  right.     We  gave  it  up. 

Question.  He  expressed  that  opinion  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  went  together,  and  I  think  my  o^^inion  was 
affected  by  my  companion. 

Question.  Your  judgment  was  that  the  property  was  not  worth 
very  much  ? 

Answer.  It  was  not  worth  to  us,  to  buy  it,  $35,000  or  $30,000. 

tjuestion.  How  many  acres  are  there  in  it? 

Answer.  I  tliink  a  little  over  one  hundred  acres. 

<^)uestion.   What  do  you  think  this  property  was  worth  in  April  last? 

Answer;  I  should  not  think  it  was  worth  over  $500  an  acre  to  buy 
the  whole  of  it. 

Question.  Is  this  spot  considered  healthy? 

Answer.  From  the  character  of  the  lands  behind  I  should  think 
they  had  intermittent  fever  there.  That  has  been  the  general  com- 
plaint, liowever,  along  there.  I  had  a  little  at  my  place,  but  the 
owners  are  very  apt  to  think  that  it  belongs  to  the  adjoining  place. 


]  44  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  this  property  having  been  in  the  market 
for  sale  ? 

Answer.  When  De  Kuyter  built  his  house  he  wanted  to  sell  the 
extreme  point,  and  had  it  mapped  out  ;  but  I  did  not  hear  what 
became  of  it.  I  lost  the  run  of  it.  I  have  never  visited  it  since  the 
occasion  I  was  there  with  a  view  of  buying  it. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  of  its  being  put  in  the  hands  of  a  real 
estate  agent  for  sale  within  the  last  two  or  three  years  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  anything  about  that.  Mr.  Wissmann 
has  spoken  about  it,  and  has  always  been  willing  to  sell  it,  and  he 
may  have  spoken  to  me,  but  I  have  never  had  any  idea  of  it  as  a 
bargain,  or  anything  worth  buying. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  parties  interested  in  this  business? 

Answer.  Only  by  hearsay.  I  asked  Wissmann  who  he  sold  to,  and 
I  think  my  old  friend  George  Irving  was  one  of  the  parties. 

Question.  Did  General  Wetmore  inform  you  who  the  parties  were? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  found  that  my  opinion  would  not  suit  him, 
and  that  ended  our  conversation. 

Question.  How  many  years  ago  did  you  sell  your  property  near  Mr. 
Cryder's? 

Answer.  I  think  I  sold  it  in  the  winter  of  1853. 

Question.  Your  property  was  further  from  the  city  of  New  York 
than  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  It  is  nearer. 

Question.  In  what  year  was  it  that  you  went  out  to  view  this  prop- 
erty with  the  view  of  purchasing  it  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  before  or  after  I  went  abroad. 
I  think  it  was  five  years  ago.  It  must  have  been  during  the  time  1 
was  more  cognizant  of  the  property  from  being  an  owner,  or  having 
been  one. 

Question.  Was  real  estate  more  valuable  there  in  1857  than  at  that 
time  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  it  had  gone  up,  by  the  settlement  and  improve- 
ment of  the  neighborhood. 

Question.  Do  you  think  it  had  appreciated  100  per  cent,  in  that 
time?  ;  .  ■     ; 

Answer.  It  might  probably  have  done  so  on'the  point,  but  I  do  not 
think  the  back  land  had  appreciated  much  at  all;  There  has  been  a 
great  appreciation  of  little  fancy  spots  on  the  Sound. 

Question  Do  you  think  that  a  property  like  this  of  Wilkins'  Point, 
taking  it  all  together,  would  have  appreciated  as  much  as  100  per 
cent,  within  that  time? 

Answer.  I  should  think  not.  I  cannot  imagine  how  it  would.  I 
do  not  know  what  outlay  Mr.  DcRuyter  put  upon  the  house  ;  he  made 
improvements  there  which  perhaps  added  to  its  value. 

Question.  Did  property  sell  in  that  neighborhood  more  readily  in 
April,  1857,  than  in  April,  1856? 

Answer.  I  should  doubt  it.  There  was  not  much  difference  between 
those  two  years.  There  might  have  been  a  gradual  improvement_,  but 
I  do  not  know  of  any  cause  for  so  rapid  a  rise  in  those  two  years. 

Question.  From  your  experience  as  a  real  estate  agent,  will  you 


TESTIMONY.  145 

state  whether  or  not  there  was  more  activity  in  selling  property  in 
the  spring  of  1856  than  ia  the  spring  of  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  there  was  ;  but  it  might  not  have  applied 
so  much  to  the  country  as  the  city.  It  has  been  very  dull  in  the  city 
for  the  year  past ;  and,  geuerally  speaking,  real  estate  has  been 
inactive. 

Question.  Did  General  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  name  any  price  he 
would  pay  you  if  you  signed  the  certificate? 

Answer.  No^  sir  ;  he  suggested  that  I  should  be  paid  for  it  as  a 
matter  of  business.  He  wauted  the  certificate,  and  did  not  want  to 
trouble  me  for  nothing. 

Question,  Is  it  usual  to  compensate  real  estate  agents  for  giving  an 
opinion  ? 

Answer.  Always. 

G.  V.  LoTT  sworn : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Answer.  In  the  city  of  New  York. 

Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  am  a  broker. 

Question.  Are  you  in  business  with  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Were  you  formerly  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   When? 

Answer    Two  years  ago. 

Question.   Have  you  an  office  with  him ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  And  you  have  not  been  connected  with  him  in  business 
for  the  last  two  years? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Where  is  your  office? 

Answer.  No.  59  Merchants'  Exchange. 

Question.   Where  is  Mr.  Richard  Schell's  office? 

Answer.  I  think  he  is  No.  62  in  the  same  building. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  purchase  of  the  property 
at  Wilkins'  Point,  in  1857,  by  the  government? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  were  interested  in  that  purchase? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Have  you  had  no  charge  of  Mr.  Richard  Schell's  aflPaira 
or  business  within  two  years? 

Answer.  N(  ne,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Richard  Schell  had  any  inte- 
rest in  this  purchase  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not. 

Question.  Whether  Mr.  Wetmore  had  any? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Whether  Mr.  Latham  had  any? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Rep.  Com.  549 10 


146  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  name  of  Mr.  Richard  Schell's  book- 
keeper? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  do  not  think  he  has  one.  He  is  now  away 
from  the  city,  at  Albany,  and  I  do  not  think  he  has  any  book-keeper 
at  all. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  he  had  a  book-keeper  in  July  or 
August  last? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  in  what  banks  he  keeps  his  bank  accounts  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  And  know  none  of  the  parties  interested  in  this  trans- 
action ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  his  business. 

Question.  Have  you  never  had  any  conversation  with  parties  con- 
nected with  the  War  Department  in  reference  to  this  transaction  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  locality  of  this  Wilkins' 
Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  value  of  property  there? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  never  had  any  conversation  with  General  Wet- 
more  in  relation  to  this  matter? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  merely  casual  remarks.  Since  I  received  my 
summons  I  kept  out  of  the  way  of  knowing  anything  about  such 
matters. 

Fbiday,  May  7,  1858. 

J.  D.  Williamson,  sworn  : 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  Jno.  B.  Haskin. 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside  and  what  is  your  profession  ? 

Arswer.  I  reside,  in  the  spring  and  summer,  in  the  county  of 
Boone,  State  of  New  York  ;  in  the  winter,  in  New  York  city.  My 
business  is  that  of  a  civil,  mechanical,  and  topographical  engineer. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  survey  it? 

Answer.  In  1856  I  received  an  order  from  Henry  and  Mortimer 
Cameron,  at  Wilkins'  Point,  to  survey  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point. 
I  find  by  my  memorandum  book  that  I  surveyed  it,  ])latted,  mapped, 
and  cohered  it,  and  the  bill  was  paid  by  Henry  Mortimer.  The  order 
was  received  in  January,  1856,  and  it  was  paid  for  March  15.  The 
property  I  valued,  according  to  the  price  laid  on  the  lots,  at  |52,500. 
I  received  from  them  an  order  to  sell  it.  H'  I  could  sell  it  at  that 
price,,  I  was  to  receive  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  commission  ;  if  1  got 
$55,000  for  it,  1  was  to  get  five  per  cent.  ;  and  all  over  that  amount 
I  could  get  I  was  to  receive  half  of,  beside  the  five  per  cent. 

Question.  How  many  acres  ? 


TESTIMONY.  147 

Answer.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  think  there  was  over  one 
hundred  and  sixty  acres.  I  am  not  certain,  because  I  did  not  note  it 
down. 

Question.  Is  it  property  Weissman  formerly  owned? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Did  you  see  Weissman  there? 

Answer.  There  was  a  number  of  parties  there  when  I  was  making 
the  survey,  and  I  think  I  saw  Weissman  there. 

Question.  Did  the  Messrs.  Cameron  have  control  of  the  property  at 
that  time? 

Answer.  I  so  understood  them,  or  they  probably  would  not  have 
made  this  offer  to  me. 

Question.  They  had  the  property  in  the  market  for  sale  as  a  specu- 
lation ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  was  your  opinion  of  the  real  value  of  the  property, 
provided  it  was  purchased  for  the  purpose  of  speculation  ? 

Answer.  I  would  not  have  given  $40,000  for  it,  and  I  thought  that 
they  asked  so  high  that  there  was  no  use  of  trying  to  sell  it. 

Question.  Was  property  in  as  much  demand,  and  did  it  bring  as 
high  prices,  in  1856  as  in  the  year  1857? 

Answer.  There  was  more  demand  for  property  in  the  spring  of  1856 
than  in  the  spring  of  1857  ;  there  was  more  speculation  going  on. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  John  C.  Mather 
on  the  subject  of  this  property? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  think  I  had ;  I  have  never  spoken  to  any 
parties  in  relation  to  the  subject  since  I  returned  from  New  Grenada, 
where  I  went  shortly  after  completing  the  survey. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  good  judge  of  the  value  of 
property  on  Long  Island  ? 

Answer.  I  was  born  and  brought  up  there,  and  I  have  generally 
been  selected  as  an  arbitrator  there  when  the  value  of  property  has 
been  in  question. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Kichard  Schell 
in  relation  to  the  value  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  R.  W.  Latham,  who  is,  or  has  been, 
in  some  way  connected  with  Gov.  Floyd? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not. 

Question.   Do  you  know  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I  know  him  ;  1  have  never  spoken  to  him  in 
relation  to  this  property. 

Question.  Do  you  know  George  Irving  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  him  in  relation 
to  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  went  away  to  New  Grenada  immediately  after  making 
the  survey,  and  did  not  get  back  until  after  1857. 

Question.  You  could  not  sell  any  of  this  property? 

Answer.  I  considered  that  they  asked  so  much  for  it  that  there  was 
no  use  in  my  attempting  to  sell  it. 


148  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Did  the  Messrs.  Cameron  say  anything  to  yon  ahout  sell- 
ing to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  told  them  I  thought  it  was  worth  more  to  the  govern- 
ment than  to  other  parties  ;  that  it  was  a  point  which,  in  the  course 
of  time,  the  government  must  have  or  would  get. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  hear  it  was  designed  for  a  fortification  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  wrote  to  the  department  before  I  went  away^ 
offering  it  to  them  for  $75,000. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  In  March,  1856.  An  answer  may  have  been  sent,  but  I 
never  got  it. 

Question.  You  wrote,  then,  yon  think,  in  the  spring  of  1856? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  in  March,  1856. 

Question.  That  they  could  have  it  for  $75,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  The  whole  of  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  have  no  memorandum  of  the  number  of  acres  in  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  the  impression  in  my  mind  is  that  there 
are  somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  160  acres  in  the  whole  plot. 

Question.  The  whole  farm  inside  of  the  creek? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  there  considerable  muddy  land  connected  with  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  that  you  were  au- 
thorized by  these  parties  to  sell  the  property  for  $52,000  or  $55,000, 
or  as  much  more  as  you  could  get  for  it  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  from  these  parties  that  if  they  could  sell  it 
for  that  amount,  or  any  sum  over  it,  that  they  could  make  something 
out  of  it,  and  that  if  they  could  not,  they  would  not  buy  it ;  that  they 
had  control  of  it,  and  would  purchase  it  if  they  could  get  over  that 
amount  for  it. 

Question.  You  offered  it  to  the  government  for  $75,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  answer  did  you  get? 

Answer.  I  left  the  country  and  never  received  an  answer. 

Question.   Who  did  you  address  on  the  subject? 

Answer.  The  Secretary  of  War,  I  think.  1  have  not  noted  it  down, 
but  that  is  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Question.  What  prompted  you  to  make  that  offer  to  the  govern- 
ment ? 

Answer.  I  considered  that  it  was  a  very  important  point  for  the 
government  to  own,  and  that  if  it  could  be  sold,  it  could  be  sold  to 
them,  because  it  was  worth  more  to  them  than  any  other  parties. 

Question.  That  is  what  you  mean  when  you  say  it  was  held  for 
flpeculative  puri)oses  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Had  the  valuation  in  lots  anything  to  do  with  the  offer 
you  made  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  in  my  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War  I  just  gave 
a  little  sketch  of  the  point,  and  stated  that  it  would  command  such 


TESTIMONY.  149 

and  such  positions  ;  and  that  if  it  ever  did  come  into  fhe  market  they 
would  have  to  pay  a  vast  sum  for  it  in  years  to  come. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  It  was  your  opinion  that  if  the  govern- 
ment did  not  accept  your  offer  they  would  have  to  pay  a  high  price 
for  the  property  when  they  wanted  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Did  you  make  a  plat  of  that  property 
when  you  surveyed  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Does  that  show  how  many  acres  there  are  in  it? 

Answer.  That  plat  will  show. 

Question.  To  the  best  of  your  recollection  there  were  160  acres 
in  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  That  included  all  that  Day  now  holds,  and  all  reserva- 
tions ? 

Answer.  It  included  the  whole  property. 

Question.  You  say  you  were  born  on  Long  Island,  and  are 
familiar  with  the  price  of  property  there  ;  suppose  government  had 
wanted  that  property,  and  it  had  been  necessary  to  call  a  jury  in 
Queens  county  to  appraise  its  value,  under  oath,  what,  in  your  judg- 
ment, would  have  been  the  price  awarded  by  them? 

Answer.  When  I  made  the  survey  I  conversed  with  a  large  number 
of  persons  there,  and  we  calculated  that  if  the  parties  got  $10,000  for 
it  they  got  a  big  sum  of  money.  If  a  jury  had  been  summoned  I  do 
not  think  they  would  have  awarded  over  $40,000  in  1856. 

April  1,  1858. 

Frederick  Weissman,  sworn.  Examined  by  the  chairman,  (Mr. 
Haskin :) 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  In  New  York. 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  have  none  ;  I  am  a  gentleman  at  large. 

Question.  Were  you  the  owner  of  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  had  you  owned  it  before  it  was  sold  to  the  gov- 
ernment? 

Answer.  I  had  owned  it  since  1852  or  1853. 

Question.  How  many  acres  were  in  the  original  tract. 

Answer.  One  hundred  and  fifty-two  acres. 

Question.  How  many  acres  were  sold  to  Mr.  Day? 

Answer.  A  little  over  twenty-five. 

Question.  How  many  acres  have  you  reserved? 

Answer.  I  have  not  reserved  any.  There  are  about  twenty-seven 
acres  of  meadow  land  left. 

Question.  Who  owns  that? 

Answer.   I  own  it. 

Question.  And  the  balance  was  sold  to  the  government  ? 


150  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  was  it  that  you  were  first  informed  or  became 
acquainted  with  the  fact  of  the  passage  of  the  hill  providing  tor  the 
commencement  of  a  fortification  opposite  fort  Schuyler  ? 

Answer.  A  day  or  two  after  it  passed ;  about  the  beginning  of 
March,  1857. 

Question.  Who  informed  you  of  it? 

Answer.  I  saw  it  in  the  papers. 

Question.  After  the  passage  of  that  bill,  who  was  the  first  person 
that  called  upon  you  in  reference  to  the  sale  of  the  property? 

Answer.  I  think  the  first  man  who  came  to  me  was  Mr.  Van  Nos- 
trand. 

Question.  Where  did  he  call  on  you? 

Answer.  In  New  York. 

Question.  What  passed  between  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  and  yourself  in 
relation  to  the  sale  ? 

Answer.  I  told  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  that  I  would  part  with  the  prop- 
erty at  the  rate  of  $1,000  an  acre,  and  my  improvements. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  apply  to  you  on  behalf  of  the 
government? 

Answer.  I  asked  him  whether  he  was  authorized  to  treat  with  me, 
and  he  said  no,  but  that  he  had  come  from  Major  Barnard  to  inquire 
about  it. 

Question.   What  did  you  value  the  improvements  at  ? 

Answer.  I  valued  the  whole  property  at  $120,000.  Van  Nostrand 
was  inquiring  what  land  was  worth  along  there,  and  he  remarked 
that  he  thought  my  price  was  a  little  above  the  mark  ;  I  told  hira 
that  I  always  expected  to  get  $1,000  an  acre  under  private  arrange- 
ments, and  that  I  did  not  expect  that  government  would  make  any 
question  about  it ;  that  if  I  sold  it  to  the  government  they  ought  to 
allow  me  that  and  a  little  more. 

Question.  When  had  you  this  interview  with  Van  Nostrand. 

Answer.  Probably  a  week  or  ten  days  after  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

Question.  Did  you  give  him  or  Major  Barnard  the  refusal  of  it  at 
any  given  price  ? 

Answer.  Not  at  a  stated  price,  that  I  recollect.  Van  Nostrand 
asked  me,  as  a  last  question,  wliether  I  was  willing  to  give  hira  a 
written  memorandum  for  $100,000,  and  I  told  him  no.  lie  told  me 
that  Barnard  would  make  liis  report,  and  that  he  would  get  an 
answer  during  the  next  week. 

Question.  Did  you  give  him  a  verbal  refusal  of  it  at  any  price  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Question.  How  many  interviews  had  Van  Nostrand  in  relation  to 
it  witli  you  ? 

Answer.   lie  met  me  in  New  York  two  or  three  times. 

Question.  Who  was  the  next  person  who  spoke  to  you  in  relation 
to  the  purchase? 

Answer.  I  sold  it  directly  afterward  to  Mr.  Irving,  and  nobody 
else  spoke  to  me  about  it. 

Question.   When  did  Irving  call  on  you  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  It  was  a  lew  days  alter  Van  Nostrand  had  seen  me. 


TESTmONY.  151 

Question.  What  passed  "between  Irving  and  you? 

Answer.  Mr.  Irving  proposed  to  buy  it  from  me,  and  I  told  him 
that  I  had  a  contract  with  Mr.  Van  Nostrand,  who  came  to  see  me 
on  the  part  of  Major  Barnard,  whom  he  told  me  would  make  his  re- 
port to  Washington,  and  that  I  thought  I  should  wait  that  report 
before  I  came  to  any  agreement  with  him.  He  proposed  to  give  me 
§130,000  for  the  property  if  the  government  did  not  buy  it,  and  I 
told  him  that  in  that  case  I  would  sell  it,  but  that  I  thought,  out  of 
politeness,  I  would  wait  to  hear  from  Major  Barnard. 

Question.  He  told  you  that  he  would  give  you  $130,000  for  it,  if 
the  government  did  not  buy  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  At  the  time  he  expected  to  get  an  answer  from 
Washington,  I  saw  Mr.  Van  Nostrand,  and  he  told  me  that  Major 
Barnard  had  as  yet  no  reply  from  Washington,  and  that  the  govern- 
ment did  not  want  it ;  but,  if  it  should,  that  they  would  take  it  under 
an  appraisement. 

Question.   When  was  this? 

Answer.  It  was  about  eight  or  ten  days  after  my  first  interview 
with  Van  Nostrand. 

Question.  After  this  interview,  then,  you  made  arrangements  with 
Irving? 

Answer.  I  had  a  written  agreement  with  Irving  at  the  time,  to  the 
effect  that  if  the  government  did  not  buy  it  I  would  sell  it  to  him. 

Question.  Did  any  other  person,  except  Mr.  Irving,  see  you  about  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  anybody  in  company  with  Irving  when  he  called 
on  you  about  it  ? 

Answer.  Not  at  that  time. 

Question.   At  any  time? 

Answer.  Mr.  Irving  frequently  called  on  me  after  the  bargain  was 
concluded,  and  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  was  with  him. 

Question.   Anybody  else? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  the  government  agreed  to  purchase? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  say  you  entered  into  an  agreement  with  Irving  ; 
what  money  was  paid  down  at  that  time  to  bind  the  bargain  ? 

Answer.  The  first  agreement  was  a  written  agreement,  and  the 
second  one  was  two  or  three  weeks  after,  when  he  paid  down  a  thou- 
sand dollars  to  bind  me. 

Question.  Did  he  give  you  a  check? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  the  money. 

Question.  State,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection,  the  agreement 
which  you  made  with  him,  the  money  that  was  to  be  paid,  and  when 
it  was  to  be  paid  ? 

Answer.  He  was  to  pay,  I  think,  $10,000  in  the  month  of  May,  and 
the  balance  in  the  middle  of  July. 

Question.  How  much  was  the  balance  after  the  $10,000  was  paid? 

Answer.  The  balance  was  §35,000.  There  was  a  mortgage  of 
§85,000  to  remain  upon  the  property. 

Question.  Who  paid  you  that  balance? 


152  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  That  was  settled  between  the  lawyers  and  Mr.  Van  Blan- 
kenstyn,  the  trustee  for  my  wife. 

Question.  Were  you  present  when  the  money  was  paid  ? 

Answer.  I  was  present  at  the  lawyers'  office,  Messrs  Owen  &  Vose. 
when  the  transaction  took  place. 

Question.   Who  paid  the  money? 

Answer.  I  think  William  C.  Wetmore. 

Question.  On  the  day  of  the  date  of  the  deed  to  Irving  there  were 
two  mortgages,  one  for  $85,000,  and  one  for  $15,502,  executed  to  your 
wife  ;  why  was  this  done? 

Answer.  I  have  only  a  faint  recollection  of  the  manoeuvre  of  the 
lawyers  in  that  respect. 

Question.  At  the  time  you  entered  into  the  agreement  with  Irving 
had  you  any  private  understanding  contingent  upon  the  government's 
purchase? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  in  fact  Mr.  Irving  gave  me  to  understand  that  it 
was  for  private  purposes  ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  said  that  if  the 
government  wanted  to  buy  it  he  should  have  no  objections. 

Question.  Did  he  state  to  you  that  he  was  solely  interested  ? 

Answer.  He  said  that  he  was  solely  interested.  The  tact  is,  I  did 
not  go  so  far  as  to  ask  him  any  indiscreet  questions.  I  did  not  ask 
him  whether  he  was  interested  alone  or  not,  but  he  tried  to  convey  the 
idea  to  me  that  he  was  alone  interested. 

Question.   Who  holds  that  mortgage  for  $85,000? 

Answer.  My  wife. 

Question.   Is  she  the  only  party  interested  in  that  mortgage? 

Answer.  Myself  and  the  children. 

Question.  Were  no  other  persons  interested? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Is  not  Mr.  Wetmore  or  Mr.  Irving  interested? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Before  this  sale  to  Mr.  Irving,  had  you  this  property  in 
the  market  for  sale  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  had  a  part  of  it,  but  not  the  whole.  I  had  it 
laid  out  in  five-acre  lots. 

Question.  Did  you  authorize  Mr.  Conroy  to  sell  it  for  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Alley? 

Answer.  I  know  one  Mr.  Alley. 

Question.  Saul  Alley's  son? 

Answer.  I  believe  he  is. 

Question.  Did  you  not  enter  into  an  agreement  with  him  just  before 
the  sale  to  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  it  was  some  time  before. 

Question.   How  long  before? 

Answer.  I  think  it  must  have  been  a  year  previous  to  the  time  I 
sold  to  Irving.     I  do  not  recollect  precisely,  however. 

Question.  13id  you  give  Mr.  Alley  a  contract  to  sell  this  property  at 
so  much  an  acre? 

Answer.  I  gave  him  a  contract  to  sell  it.  I  think  he  proposed  buy- 
ing ten  or  fifttin  acres. 


TESTIMONY.  153 

Question.  Did  you  not  give  him  a  contract  to  sell? 

Answer.  I  gave  him  a  contract  that  I  would  sell  ten  or  fifteen  acres. 

Question.   At  how  much  an  acre  ? 

Answer.   At  §500  or  $600  an  acre. 

Question.  8tate  how  long  hefore  March,  1857,  this  was  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  It  was  in  the  spring  of  the  year  ;  and  I 
believe  it  was  the  year  before,  but  it  may  have  been  the  same  year. 
There  were  so  many  propositions  about  the  affair  that  I  do  not  recol- 
lect a  particular  one,  having  no  precise  data  to  go  by. 

Question.  Had  you  not  the  year  before  offered  to  sell  the  whole  tract 
for  $500  an  acre  ? 

Answer.  Two  years  before  I  offered  to  sell  it  for  $117,000. 

Question.  To  the  government  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  not  apply  to  Mr.  Draper  to  have  him  sell  it  to 
the  government  for  $117,000? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  did  not.  Mr.  Draper  applied  to  me,  and  I  gave 
him  a  contract  that  I  would  sell  it  to  him  for  $117,000  or  $118,000. 

Question.  You  sold  some  of  that  property  to  Mr.  Henry  Day  ;  how 
much  an  acre  did  he  pay  you  for  it  ? 

Answer.   About  $500  an  acre. 

Question.  That  was" in  February,  1857,  the  date  of  the  deed,  was  it 
not? 

Answer.  The  deed  is  dated  February,  but  it  was  in  the  October  be- 
fore ;  the  deed  is  dated  the  first  or  second  of  March. 

Question.  Has  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetraore  ever  had  any  conversations 
with  you  about  the  sale  or  negotiations  between  you  and  Irving. 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Richard  Schell  about  it? 

Answer.  He  was  at  the  office  of  Owen  &  Vose. 

Question.  To  do  what? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know ;  it  was  near  the  end  of  the  transaction  that 
I  saw  him. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  he  paid  the  money  to  Messrs. 
Owen  &  Vose? 

Answer.  I  did  not  know  at  the  t'rae,  but  I  heard  afterwards  that 
he  either  advanced  the  money  or  paid  it. 

Question.  Who  did  you  hear  that  from? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  saw  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  once  when  he  visited 
the  place  with  another  gentleman,  and  looked  over  the  place,  and  then 
went  off. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer,  That  was  during  the  summer  of  last  year. 

Question.   After  the  sale  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  After  your  sale  to  Irving  ? 

Answer.  It  was  after  my  sale  to  Irving  ;  I  sold  to  Mr.  Irving  in  the 
spring. 

Question.  You  agreed  to  sell.     When  did  you  pass  the  deed  ? 


154  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  When  he  paid  me  the  $1,000  I  considered  the  sale  made. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Schell  and  these  other  gentlemen  visit  the  pro- 
perty before  Mr.  Irving  sold  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  That  I  cannot  say  ;  I  do  not  know  when  Irving  sold  to  the 
government. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  month  they  were  there  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  it  was  the  latter  part  of  June.  It  was 
during  the  summer. 

Question.  Were  you  notified  of  their  intended  visit  before  they 
paid  it  ? 

Answer.  I  heard  the  day  before  that  they  would  very  likely  pay  the 
visit. 

Question.  Who  did  you  hear  it  from? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question.  Did  not  Mr.  Wetmore  tell  you  that  they  intended  coming  ? 

Answer.  Wetmore  came  with  them. 

Question.  But  from  whom  did  you  hear  the  day  before  that  they 
intended  paying  the  visit? 

Answer.  I  should  not  wonder  if  I  heard  it  from  Wetmore ;  but  I 
also  heard  it  from  one  or  two  others. 

Question.  Who  came  with  Mr.  Schell  and  other  gentlemen  ? 

Answer.  The  party  consisted  of  Mr.  Wetmore,  Mr.  Schell,  and 
Mr.  Fowler. 

Question.   And  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,  but  I  think  Mr.  Irving  was  along. 

Question.  Whose  carriage  did  they  come  in? 

Answer.  They  came  over  from  Flushing. 

Question.  Does  Irving  keep  a  carriage? 

Answer.  He  has  one  horse  and  a  carriage,  I  think. 

Question.  How  long  did  they  remain? 

Answer.  About  an  hour. 

Question.  Did  you  prepare  a  collation  for  them  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  at  all.  I  invited  them  into  the  house  and  gave 
them  a  glass  of  brandy  and  water  and  a  segar.  I  always  do  that 
when  anybody  comes  to  see  me. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  an  interview  with  Major  Barnard  about 
the  sale  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  came  on  the  place  once  with  Mr.  Lawrence. 
I  heard  that  he  was  going  to  pay  me  a  visit  by  talk  on  the  steamboat. 
This  was  about  the  time  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  saw  me  ;  but  Barnard  did 
not  say  a  word  to  me  about  buying,  the  })rice,  or  anything  at  all. 

Question.  How  long  had  you  demanded  $1,000  an  acre  for  the  pro- 
perty previous  to  your  sale  to  Irving? 

Answer.  From  the  time  I  bought  it.  It  was  the  mark  I  had  set  on 
it  and  expected  to  get  for  it.     I  bought  it  from  my  father-in-law. 

Question.  You  bought  it  from  your  father-in-law  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir  ;  and  it  cost  me  full  $G0,O0O. 

Question.   The  whole  tract  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  offer  it  for  less  than  $1,000  an  acre  previous 
to  the  time  you  sold  it  ? 


TESTBIOXY.  155 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  sold  part  of  it  to  Mr.  Day  ? 

Answer.  That  was  to  have  that  part  improved  as  he  promised  to 
improve  it. 

Question.  At  what  rate  have  you  been  taxed  by  the  authorities  ? 

Answer.  The  farm  is  taxed  for  §28,000. 

Question.  It  cost  you  §60,000  ? 

Answer.  With  the  interest  I  paid  on  it  and  the  improvements  I 
made.  I  call  myself  the  purchaser  of  it ;  it  was  conveyed  by  my  father- 
in-law  in  trust. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  him  a  consideration  for  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  any  conversation  about  selling  this  pro- 
perty before  money  was  appropriated  by  Congress  for  its  purchase  ? 

Answer.  None  but  with  Mr.  Draper,  and  I  thought  he  made  mean 
offer  with  the  view  of  selling  it  to  the  government. 

Question.  You  considered  him,  then,  as  a  sort  of  an  agent  for 
the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  suppose  him  that,  because  I  knew  he  was  not ; 
but  I  thought  he  wanted  to  buy  the  property  with  the  view  of  selling 
it  to  the  government. 

Question.  What  did  you  ask  Draper  for  the  property  ? 

Answer.  §117,718. 

Question.  Did  he  decline  the  offer  ? 

Answer.  He  declined  it  after  he  saw  that  the  bill  did  not  pass. 

Question.  Did  he  give  any  other  reason  than  that  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  not  say  that  he  did  not  think  it  was  worth  so  much  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  call  upon  you,  in  relation  to  buy- 
ing this  property,  as  the  agent  of  Major  Barnard? 

Answer.  He  came  to  me  on  behalf  of  Major  Barnard,  but  he  had  no 
authority  to  deal  with  me,  and  only  inquired  the  value  of  the  property. 

Question.   Did  he  call  upon  you  more  than  once  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  met  him  once  or  twice,  by  chance,  at  Mr.  Day's  office, 
and  I  saw  him  once  at  his  own  office. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  call  on  him  ? 

Answer.  I  saw  him  at  his  place  when  he  expected  to  hear  from  Ma- 
jor Barnard. 

Question.  What  was  your  proposition  to  him  ? 

Answer.  My  proposition  to  him  was  §1,000  an  acre,  and  my  improve- 
ments, which  I'valued  at  §15,000. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  call  upon  Mr.  Van  Nostrand,  and  converse 
with  him  upon  the  subject  pending  the  negotiations? 

Answer.  Between  the  first  and  last  interviews  we  saw  each  other. 

Question.  Was  the  suggestion  made  on  one  side  or  the  other  that 
perhaps  $100,000  would  be  the  price  ;  did  you  ever  tell  him  that  there 
was  no  variation  in  the  price  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  such  a  conversation  with  Major   Barnard? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  Mr.  Lawrence,  who  came  with  him,  wanted 
me  veryniucli  to  say  §100,000,  and  pressed  me  to  name  that  price. 


156  TESTIMONY, 

Question.  Did  you  decline  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  I  told  Mr.  Lawrence  that  I  did  not  think 
I  ought  to  sell  it  for  that,  and  could  not  promise  that  I  would  ;  but  he 
may  have  interpreted  me  to  mean  that  if  Major  Barnard  came  down 
to  me  with  $100,000, 1  would  take  it.  VanNostrand  asked  me  to  give 
him  a  memorandum  that  I  would  sell  it  for  $100,000  cash,  but  I 
would  not. 

Question.  Did  you  leave  the  impression  upon  Mr.  Lawrence's  mind 
that  if  the  government  offered  you  $100,000  you  would  take  it  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not  know  the  impression  upon  Mr.  Lawrence's  mind, 
but  my  mind  was  fixed  that  I  would  not  take  it. 

Question.  Had  you,  during  the  pendency  of  this  quasi  negotiation 
■with  Van  Nostrand,  any  conversation  witli  him  upon  the  subject? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  thiuk  that  Van  Nostrand  had  any  right 
to  expect  I  would  sell  it  for  $100,000. 

Question.  But  did  you  not  see  him  several  times  after  your  first  in- 
terview with  him? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  as  I  passed  by,  I  would  drop  into  his  office  to 
see  whether  he  had  anything  to  say. 

Question.  Have  your  wife,  your  children,  and  yourself,  received 
$130,000,  including  the  mortgage  for  $85,000  for  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  have  been  paid. 

Question.  Is  any  person  interested  in  that  amount,  either  directly 
or  indirectly  except  your  wife,  your  children,  and  yourself? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  There  is  no  understanding,  verbal  or  in  writing,  showing 
that  any  person  or  persons  are  interested  in  that  $85,000  mortgage 
beside  your  wife,  your  children,  and  yourself? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  none  whatever.  I  have  received  clear  $130,000, 
deducting  $19,000,  which  paid  off  the  old  mortgage. 

Question.  The  government  paid  $200,000  for  the  property.  Do  you 
know  who  received  the  $70,000,  over  and  above  what  was  paid  you? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  talked  with  Irving  upon  the  subject  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Wetmore  had  any  interest  in 
that  $70,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Kichard  Schell  had  any  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.   Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  had  any  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  any  person  had  any  interest  in  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  know  nothing  about  the  rest  of  the  transaction. 

Monday,  April  5,  1858, 

Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  sworn.     Examined  by  Mr.  Hopkin.s 

Question.  State  to  tlie  committee  all  you  know  about  the  sale  and 
purchase  of  this  property  at  Wiikins'  Point,  purchased  by  the  gov- 
ernment ? 


TESTBIOXT.  157 

Aijswer.  A  great  deal  of  what  a  person  outside  of  this  suhject  knows 
he  knows  from  public  rumor;  there  is  a  great  deal  which  I  fully  be- 
lieve to  be  true,  but  which  I  do  not  know.  For  instance,  I  have  no 
doubt  that  the  property  was  sold  to  the  government  ;  but  I  do  not 
know  it  ;  I  do  not  know  when  the  money  passed,  or  the  papers,  or 
anylhiog  by  which  I  could  testify  to  the  fact  that  the  government  did 
buy  the  property  and  receive  its  title  ;  I  do  know  that  Mr.  George 
Irving  purchased  the  property,  and  I  fully  believe  he  sold  it ;  he  pur- 
chased it  of  Mr.  Weissman  ;  the  reason  why  I  m.ake  the  distinction, 
and  say  I  do  know  of  the  purchase,  is,  that  I  was  asked  to  be  present 
as  a  witness  of  the  purchase,  and  therefore  I  can  safely  swear  that  I 
do  know  of  the  purchase  ;  as  to  the  sale  to  the  government,  you  will 
have  to  get  your  evidence  of  that  from  somebody  else. 

Question.  Have  you  an  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  the  property? 

Answer.  I  am  familiar  with  that  district  of  country,  and  have  my 
opinion  as  to  its  value. 

Question.   Give  the  committee  your  opinion? 

Answer.  I  will  very  freely  give  my  opinion,  and  I  would  regard  it 
as  a  privilege  if  the  committee  would  allow  me  to  state  briefly  the 
grounds  on  which  I  formed  it.  I  have  seen  the  survey  of  that  pro- 
perty measured  to  low  water  mark,  where  it  must  be  measured  to  enable 
the  government,  or  any  other  owner,  to  take  advantage  of  the  law  of 
the  State  which  granted  the  water  front  outside  of  low  water  mark. 

Question.  Was  that  grant  made  to  former  owners  or  to  the  gov- 
ernment? 

Answer.  To  the  government.  The  law  was  passed  before  the  gov- 
ernment made  this  purchase  ;  but  it  was  a  prospective  grant  to  the 
government  to  the  water  front  of  any  property  it  might  buy  in  that 
county.  Let  me  be  distinctly  understood  ;  the  government,  or  any 
one,  could  not  take  possession  of  that  water  front  unless  it  could  be 
connected  with  the  property.  I  am  somewhat  familiar  with  the  prac- 
tice along  Long  Island  shore.  The  people  claim  the  right,  where 
you  do  not  occupy  yourself,  to  occupy  for  drawing  seines,  and  for  all 
the  purposes  of  their  own  private  use.  Property  that  is  not  occupied 
down  to  low  water  mark  you  do  not  possess,  because  you  do  not  oc- 
cupy. That  is  the  general  law  applied  in  cases  of  much  more  impor- 
tance. You  must,  therefore,  occupy  to  low  water  mark  to  connect 
with  your  property  in  front  of  low  water  mark.  There  are,  then, 
130  acres  in  this  property,  and  counting,  as  city  lots,  seventeen  lots  to 
an  acre,  before  you  throw  out  the  streecs,  there  would  be  2,200  lots. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  the  government  purchased  130  acres? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  seen  the  map  and  survey,  but  I  do  not 
know  where  it  is. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  the  deed  in  evidence,  and  it  is  there  set 
down  at  110  acres. 

Witness.  That  is  the  high  water  estimate.  No  owner  would  think 
of  throwing  away  his  water  front.  You  must  measure  to  low  water 
mark,  or  you  would  not  retain  property  which  you  would  find  very 
valuable.  I  have  shown  that  there  would  be  2,200  city  lots  in  the 
property.  Now  I  must  leave  that  direct  matter  for  a  moment  to  ad- 
vert to  the  grounds  upon  which  I  place  my  value  upon  the  property. 


158  TESTIMONY. 

The  city  of  New  York  is  the  foundation  of  the  rise  of  property 
throughout  this  neighhoring  country.  Our  population  is  increasing 
so  fast  that  we  are  overleaping  all  bounds.  We  are  building  up  a 
ward  on  the  Jersey  shore  ;  from  Powles  Hook  to  Wehawken  is  one 
continuous  city,  which  extends  back  five  miles  into  New  Jersey.  On 
the  opposite  side  of  New  Jersey  we  reach,  by  the  North  river,  the 
county  of  Westchester.  In  this  county  is  the  little  village  of  Yonkers, 
which  I  visited  nine  years  ago,  when  property  could  be  bought  for 
$500  an  acre,  which  has  grown  into  a  steadily  increasing  city,  with 
between  twenty  and  thirty  thousand  inhabitants.  It  is  a  very  fast 
growing  business  place,  and  lots  now  sell  there  at  §8,000  a  lot_,  the 
very  same  land  which  could  have  been  purchased  ten  years  ago  at 
$500  an  acre,  lots  twenty-five  by  one  hundred. 

This  village  of  Yonkers  is  but  a  ward  of  the  city  of  New  York. 
The  wealthy  men  who  live  in  that  gentleman's  (Mr.  Haskin's)  county, 
and  who  pay  a  small  amount  of  taxes  there,  make  their  money  in 
business  in  ISew  York.  They  come  down  to  the  city  at  9  o'clock,  and 
spend  their  days  toiling  to  secure  wealth,  and  go  to  this  gentleman's 
county  to  spend  it ;  but  nevertheless  it  is  a  ward  of  New  York.  Pass- 
ing to  the  other  side  of  New  York,  we  next  come  to  Harlem  bridge, 
8even  miles  from  the  City  Hall  There  is  a  village  from  Motthaven 
to  Fordham,  a  string  of  houses  extending  something  like  six  miles, 
perhaps  seven.  That  line  of  settlements  extends  from  the  main  road 
over  towards  the  North  river.  It  is  a  circumstance  almost  challeng- 
ing belief  that  such  a  settlement  could  have  sprung  up  there  within 
so  short  a  time  as  it  has.  Well,  it  is  but  a  part  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  There  is  nothing  in  the  business  capabilities  of  Westchester 
county  that  could  have  built  up  this  hive  of  villages.  It  is  the  popu- 
lation of  New  York  overflowing  its  natural  boundaries.  I  will  now 
Wke  you  to  the  other  side  of  the  East  river.  From  Gowanus  bay  to 
Hunter's  Point,  a  distance  ranging  five  miles  along  the  river,  and 
extending  back  into  the  country  from  four  to  six,  there  is  one  vast 
city.  The  population  of  Brooklyn,  for  it  is  Brooklyn  now,  is  over 
200,000.  There  is  nothing  upon  Long  island — no  advantages  at 
Brooklyn — to  build  up  such  a  city  there.  It  is  the  overflowing  popu- 
lation of  New  York.  Legislation  has  already  been  contemplated  by 
which  Brooklyn  is  to  be  connected  directly  as  a  ward  of  the  city  of 
New  York.  Extending  up  from  Hunter's  Point,  the  Flushing  rail- 
road has  opened  a  new  line  of  settlements  about  six  or  seven  miles. 
Little  villages  are  dotted  along  the  whole  of  that  road,  and  property 
in  Flushing  has  doubled  within  two  years.  Immediately  opposite,  on 
the  oiher  side  of  the  bay,  we  come  to  a  place  called  College  Point,  by 
no  means  a  desirable  situation  for  a  village  in  comi)arison  with  these 
other  places.  College  Point  was  mainly  owned  by  a  family  named 
Van  Whyt.  The  widow  Van  Whyt  sold  her  part  of  the  farm,  retain- 
ing ordy  the  island,  for  $1,250  an  acre;  and  more  than  half  that  farm 
has  changed  hands  since,  gradually  extending  to  $1,500,  $3,000,  and 
$4,000  an  acre.  And  I  understand,  from  authority  on  which  I  place 
every  reliance,  that  you  cannot  buy  an  acre  of  that  land  to-day  at  less 
than  $4,000.  It  is  between  nine  and  ten  miles  from  New  York  ;  and 
two  years  from  now  there  will  be  a  village  there  filled  with  a  laboring 


TESTIMONY.  159 

and  manufacturing  population  from  the  city  of  New  York.  The  next 
step  in  progress  is  at  Whitestone,  which  is  a  small  settlement  back 
from  the  river,  under  the  name  of  Clintonville.  The  property  there 
is  now  worth  $1,500  an  acre,  and  desirable  sites  are  worth  more ;  but 
there  is  no  settlement  there,  it  is  back  from  the  river.  Perhaps  it 
will  surprise  you  to  know  that  there  is  a  manufacturing  establishment 
at  Whitestone  larger  than  exists  in  the  Union,  and,  I  have  been  told, 
larger  than  exists  in  Europe,  for  the  manufacture  of  tinware.  Next, 
and  immediately  above  Whitestone,  comes  Wilkins'  Point ;  the  proper 
name  is  Thorn's  Point,  he  having  been  the  original  proprietor.  The 
advantages  of  Wilkins'  Neck  for  village  settlements  to  the  people  of 
New  Yoik,  are  unequalled,  certainly  unsurpassed,  by  any  one  place  I 
have  named.  As  near  as  I  am  able  to  state,  it  is  within  twelve  miles 
by  water  of  the  steamboat  landing,  New  York  ;  is  accessible  by  rail- 
road, which  is  within  three  miles  of  the  rear  of  it  ;  and  it  is  contem- 
plated to  extend  the  Flushing  railroad  further  up  the  island,  in  which 
case  it  will  intersect  W^ilkins'  Neck.  It  is,  I  believe,  standing  out 
boldly  in  the  stream,  looking  up  the  East  river  as  far  as  the  eye  can 
reach,  and  looking  down  as  far  as  the  conformation  of  the  islands  will 
permit ;  it  is  unquestionably  a  healthy  spot,  fine  water,  and  all  the 
advantages  to  enable  a  settlement  to  live  there  comfortably  and  con- 
veniently. 

Now,  I  will  go  back  to  my  original  estimate:  2,200  lots,  worth  $150 
a  lot,  would  make  $330,000.  It  would  be  a  very  easy  matter.  You 
could,  in  a  few  hours,  find  a  man  who  would  grade  the  whole  of  that 
property  down  to  a  level  and  fill  it  up  to  low  water  mark,  thus  taking 
possession  of  your  own  property,  and  there  would  be  stone  upon  the 
place  to  build  a  sea  wall.  I  would  find  a  contractor  in  two  hours 
who  would  accomplish  it  without  hesitation,  who  would  grade  the 
property,  and  place  it  in  a  condition  to  be  sold  in  city  lots  for  $80,000. 
Deduct 'this  sum  from  the  $3:^0,000,  and  you  have  left  $250,000,  the 
sum  at  which  I  value  the  property. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman. 

Questiv)n.  Are  the  130  acres  worth  $2,000  an  acre? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,  at  this  day,  a  private  speculation  that  could 
be  entered  into  so  promising,  and  so  well  calculated  to  insure  a  pro- 
mising result  to  sagacious  enterprising  capitalists  as  the  purchase  of 
this  property. 

Question.  Are  not  the  opinions  you  have  expressed  in  relation  to 
the  value  of  this  property  entirely  speculative? 

Answer.  They  are  not,  sir  ;  because  my  opinion  of  the  value  of  this 
property  is  based  upon  the  value  of  the  property  in  the  neighborhood. 

Question.  You  have  referred  to  Yonkers  as  a  city? 

Answer.  It  is  a  city  in  all  the  aspects  of  civilization. 

Question.  Has  it  ever  been  incorporated;  is  it  not  still  a  village? 

Answer.  You  can  answer  that  question.  When  I  spoke  of  it  as  a 
city  I  qualified  my  remarks,  by  saying  that  it  was  a  city  in  all  the  ele- 
ments of  prosperity.  The  technical  form  may  be  that  it  is  a  village, 
but  it  has  the  aspect  of  a  city  to  a  man  who  travels  through  it. 

Question.  How  many  buildings  are  there  in  Yonkers? 


IGO  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  have  not  counted  them.  I  have  looked  at  the  census  and 
am  under  the  impression  that  there  is  a  popuhation  of  20,000. 

Question.  Can  you  not  tell  how  many  buildings  there  are  in 
Yonkers  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Is  there  not  a  railroad  running  through  Yonkers  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  The  Hudson  Kiver  railroad? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  they  not  have,  in  addition  to  the  railroad,  steamboats 
stopping  there  at  various  times  during  the  day? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  they  not  great  manufacturing  facilities  at  Yonkers? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Water  facilities? 

Answer.  They  have  water  privileges,  but  I  do  not  know  how  they 
use  tliem  ;  I  think  they  use  steam. 

Question.  You  have  referred  to  the  villages  on  the  line  of  the  Har- 
lem railroad,  between  the  Harlem  river  and  Fordham  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  they  were  commenced  ? 

Answer.  Soon  after  the  Plarlem  railroad  was  commenced  ;  Fordham 
was  a  very  small  place  before  the  railroad  was  built,  and  I  regard  all 
these  villages  as  the  result  of  the  intercommunication  with  New  York. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  that  Morrisania,  which  was  the  pioneer 
village^  and  from  which  the  others  si)rung,  was  commenced  on  the  as- 
sociateil  principle  in  1849,  two  hundred  men  from  the  city  of  New 
York  subscribing  and  taking  an  acre  each,  with  the  condition  that 
they  would  build  upon  it? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  communications  there  are  each 
day  between  Fordham  and  the  city  of  New  York  ? 

Answer.  As  often  as  once  an  hour. 

Question.  How  many  communications  between  Yonkers  and  New 
York  by  lailroad  and  steamboat? 

Answer.  N(>t  quite  so  often  as  once  in  an  hour  I  should  think. 

Question.   Wheni  is  the  terminus  of  the  Flushing  railroad? 

Answer.   At  Flushing. 

Question.   How  far  from  Wilkins'  Point. 

Answer.   I  believe  I  stated  something  like  three  and  a  half  miles. 

Question.  You  have  stated  that  it  is  in  contemplation  to  continue 
on  this  Flushing  railroad? 

Answer.   It  has  been  so  announced. 

Question.  What  direction  would  that  road  take  if  it  was  continued 
on? 

Answer.  It  wouM  take  the  head  of  these  bays,  and  would  run 
directly  in  the  rear  of  Wilkins'  Neck. 

(Question.    How  far  from  it? 

Answer.   Probably  hall'  a  mile,  ranging  from  that  to  a  mile. 

(^)uestion.  Within  five  years  how  many  buildings  have  been  put  up 
at  Wilkins'  Point  and  about  there  to  your  knowledge  ? 

Answer.  There  have  been  no  buildings  put  up  within  my  knowledge. 


TESTIMONY.  261 

Question.  At  Wilkins'  Point,  or  within  half  a  mile  of  it,  have  there 
been  fifteen  buildings  put  up  within  the  last  five  years  ? 

Answer.  All  the  property  now  is  occupied  by  very  expensive  and 
highly  ornamented  country  seats.  All  the  grounds  from  Wilkins' 
Point  to  what  is  called  the  main  road  is  occupied  by  gentlemen's 
country  seats.  There  is  no  unoccupied  land  on  the  water  front,  I 
believe. 

Question.  State  whether,,  within  your  knowledge,  there  have  been 
twenty  buildings  put  up  within  half  a  mile  of  Wilkins'  Point  in  the 
last  five  years  ? 

Answer.  On  Wilkins'  Neck  there  have  been  no  buildings  put  up. 

Question.  I  ask  whether  there  have  been  twenty  put  up  within  half 
a  mile  of  it  ? 

Answer.  Not  quite  so  many  ;  I  do  not  recollect  more  than  ten  or 
twelve. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  that  this  prop- 
erty was  in  the  market  for  sale  for  five  years  before  the  government 
purchased  it  ? 

Answer.  I  never  heard  it  was  in  the  market,  nor  did  I  ever  know  that 
it  was  in  the  market,  but  I  do  not  entertain  a  doubt  of  it,  because  there 
was  always  this  incubus  of  a  fortification  hanging  over  it.  It  was 
always  pointed  out,  going  up  or  coming  down  the  river,  as  the  place 
where  there  was  to  be  a  fort,  and  nobody  could  live  there  or  go  there. 

Question,  When  was  the  bill  providing  for  this  fortification  passed? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember.  It  was  during  the  last  session  of  the 
last  Congress. 

Question.   Do  you  own  any  property  in  that  vicinity  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Have  you  owned  any  within  five  years  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  property  having  been  up  for  sale 
about  there  during  the  last  three  years? 

Answer.  There  is,  literally  speaking,  never  any  property  for  sale 
there.  Occasionally  you  hear  of  a  piece  of  property  changing  hands, 
but  it  is  once  in  a  great  while.  The  talk  on  the  Neck  is,  that  there  is 
no  property  for  sale  ;  there  is  no  inclination  to  invite  Netv  Yorkers 
there. 

Question.  Is  there  any  steamboat  landing  on  this  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  near  ? 

Answer.  It  is  directly  within  the  line  of  route. 

Question.  How  far  is  it  from  a  steamboat  landing  ? 

Answer.  Seven  or  eight  miles.     It  is  a  mile  across  the  bay. 

Question.  You  say  you  are  in  the  habit  of  boarding  on  the  island? 

Answer.  At  Great  Neck. 

Question.  Near  where  Mr.  Irving  lives? 

Answer.   Within  a  mile. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  Six  years. 

Question.  When  was  your  attention  first  called  to  the  act  passed 
for  the  commencement  of  this  fortification,  and  by  whom  ? 
H.   Rep.   Com.  549 11 


162  TESXmONY 

Answer.  By  Mr.  Irving,  who  told  me  that  he  had  made  an  ofibr 
for  the  property. 

Question.  When  was  that  ? 

Answer.  In  the  month  of  March  of  last  year. 

Question.  That  he  had  made  an  offer  for  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  state  what  the  offer  was? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place  he  did  not.  The  conversation  was  to 
this  effect :  That  he  had  heen  over  to  the  Point  to  make  a  proposition 
to  purchase  it,  and  Mr.  Weissman  had  told  him  that  it  was  not  for 
sale  ;  tliat  he  had  given  either  a  written  or  verbal  promise  to  some 
person,  (I  do  not  know  who,)  by  which  that  person  was  at  liberty  to 
make  a  purchase  of  the  property  within  a  week  ;  but  if  the  offer  was 
not  accepted  within  that  time,  that  he  would  then  be  ready  to  nego- 
tiate with  Mr.  Irving.  Mr.  Irving  waited  until  the  time  expired, 
and  then  went  there  and  completed  his  negotiation. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  It  was  between  the  20th  of  March  and  the  10th  of  April, 
as  near  as  I  can  locate  it. 

Question.  Did  you  go  with  Irving,  at  any  time,  to  see  Weissman  in 
relation  to  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  never  went  with  him  during  the  time  he  was  negotiating, 
but  he  informed  me  that  he  had  agreed  upon  the  terms  of  negotiation, 
and  at  his  request  I  went  with  him  to  witness  the  completion  of  it. 
This  was  in  the  early  part  of  the  month  of  April. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  the  agreement,  or  the  passing  of  the  deed? 

Answer.  The  signing  of  a  paper. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Irving  state  to  you,  at  any  time  before  he  en- 
tered into  this  agreement,  what  his  purpose  was  in  relation  to  the  pur- 
chase ? 

Answer.  He  stated  distinctly  that  he  had  a  double  purpose  ;  that 
he  bought  the  property  on  speculation,  and  that  he  thought  he  might 
sell  it  to  the  government,  or  improve  it  for  villa  sites.  He  did  not 
make  up  his  mind  at  first  which  he  considered  the  most  valuable  plan. 

Question.  Did  he  come  on  to  Washington  in  the  month  of  March  in 
relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Did  you  come  to  Washington  in  relation  to  it  in  the 
months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  or  July? 

Answer.  No,  sir.     I  was  in  Washington  in  March  and  April.     • 

Question.  When  you  were  here  in  the  months  of  March  and  April, 
did  you  call  at  the  War  Department,  or  see  any  one  connected  with 
the  War  Dt'i)artiiient,  in  relation  to  negotiating  this  sale? 

Answer.  1  never  called  on  tlie  War  Department;  I  never  saw  any 
])erson  connected  with  the  War  Department,  or  exchanged  a  word 
with  a  human  being  connected  with  that  department  or  any  other 
branch  of  the  government  in  my  life  upon  the  subject. 

Question.  Did  you  not  sign  a  paper  that  was  transmitted  to  the 
War  Department,  becoming  security  in  some  manner  in  connexion 
with  the  title  to  this  property,  or  the  taxes  upon  it? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  such  a  pai)er,  heard  of  it,  nor  signed  it. 

Question.  Not  an  agreement  to  be  surety  for  any  arrears  of  taxes 
upon  this  property  ? 


TESTIMONY.  163 

Answer.  Never. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Latham  in 
relation  to  this  subject  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly? 

•Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  With  Mr.  Floyd? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  him  but  once  in  my  life,  and  that  was  in  Wall 
street,  New  York.  He  was  speaking  from  the  steps  of  the  Exchange, 
and  I  was  in  the  crowd. 

Question.  Did  yon  call  on  Mr.  Anthony  J.  Bleecker  to  certify  as  to 
the  value  of  the  property  at  any  time  ;  if  so,  please  state  when,  and 
what  occurred  ? 

Answer.  I  did  ;  I  called  at  his  office,  but  he  was  out,  and  I  met 
him  at  the  corner  of  Broad  and  Wall  streets,  going  to  the  Exchange. 
I  told  him  that  Mr.  George  Irving  had  requested  me  to  ask  him 
whether  he  was  willing  to  give  him  a  written  estimate  of  the  value  of 
the  property  at  Wilkins'  Neck  ;  that  if  he  would  do  so,  Mr.  Irving 
would  compensate  him  for  giving  his  professional  opinion.  His  reply 
was,  that  he  was  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  property,  and 
must  decline  giving  his  opinion,  although  he  should  be  very  much 
delighted  to  oblige  Mr.  Irving.  We  were  not  in  company  two  min- 
utes, because  he  w^as  in  haste  to  go  to  the  Exchange,  and  the  closing 
words  were  exchanged  when  he  was  halfway  up  the  steps  and  I  on 
the  pavement. 

Question.  Did  you  not  request  him  to  certify  that  it  was  worth 
$1,500  or  $2,000  an  acre? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  not  state  that  he  owned  property  in  the  vicinity, 
and  that  this  was  not  worth  $500  an  acre  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  did  not  say  so,  or  anything  that  could  be  so 
construed. 

Question.  Did  you  not  subsequently  call  upon  T.  B.  Bleecker  and 
Burling  to  certify  to  the  value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  Mr.  T.  B.  Bleecker  on  the  subject ;  but  I 
spoke  to  Mr.  Burling  in  the  same  manner  that  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Anthony 
J,  Bleecker.  I  will  say  these  words  in  explanation :  Mr.  Irving, 
asked  of  me  the  favor  to  obtain  for  him  estimates  of  the  value  of  the 
property,  and  I  complied  with  his  request.  I  would  have  done  as  much 
for  any  friend,  and  it  gave  me  great  pleasure  to  do  it  for  Mr.  Irving. 
I  went  to  Burling  and  asked  him  if  he  was  acquainted  with  the  prop- 
erty, and  whether  he  was  willing  to  sign  a  paper  which  Irving  had, 
giving  an  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  the  [)roperty.  The  paper  had 
been  signed,  and  I  remember  saying  to  Burling,  you  must  be  the  judge 
whether  you  approve  the  valuation  ;  if  you  do,  and  choose  to  sign  it, 
I  shall  recommend  Irving  to  compensate  you  for  it.  Mr.  Burling 
signed  it  with  great  readiness,  and  I  handed  it  back  to  Irving. 
Whether  compensation  was  made  or  not  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  you  not  pay  ? 

Answer.  In  no  case. 

Question.  Did  you  not  pay  money  to  Mr.  Miller? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Are  you  quite  certain  that  you  never  spoke  to  T.  B. 
Bleecker,  the  partner  of  Burling,  on  the  subject? 

Answer.   I  never  opened  my  lips  to  him  on  the  subject ;  my  acquaint- 


164  TESTIMONY. 

ance  with  liim  was  a  very  slight  one  ;  I  had  always  known  him  as  a 
Bleecker,  but  it  has  only  been  within  a  year  that  I  have  known  him 
as  T.  B.  Bleecker  ;  when  I  called  on  Mr.  Burling,  my  desire  was  to 
see  Mr.  Bleecker,  but  he  told  me  he  was  out  of  town,  and  I  then 
transacted  the  business  with  Burling  ;  I  never  saw  Bleecker  on  the 
subject  ;  I  think  I  cannot  be  mistaken  in  inferring  from  the  manner  of 
the  questions,  that  my  memory  is  different  from  that  of  some  persons 
who  may  have  sworn  here.  Now,  give  me  leave  to  say  that  I  have 
known  Anthony  J.  Bleecker  well  ;  he  is  a  friend  of  long  standing,  as 
honest  a  man  as  breathes,  who  would  not  swear  to  a  single  word  that 
he  did  not  believe  to  be  true  ;  but  I  am  here  testifying  from  my 
memory,  not  from  his. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  speak  to  Mr.  James  B.  Miller,  auctioneer, 
in  relation  to  certifying  to  the  value  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  certainly  did. 

Question.  Did  you  engage  him  to  give  a  professional  opinion  as  to 
the  value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  ;  it  was  in  the  month  of  April  ;  the 
paper  will  tell. 

Question.   Where  did  you  see  him  ? 

Answer.  At  his  own  office,  in  Maiden  lane  ;  he  resides  in  West 
'Chester  county. 

Question.  Did  he  go  upon  this  property  and  examine  it  ? 

Answer.  That  is  more  than  I  can  tell  you. 

Quertion.  Did  he  sign  the  paper  in  your  presence,  certifying  to  the 
rvalue  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.   I  am  quite  sure  he  did. 

Question.  In  whose  handwriting  was  that  paper  ? 

Answer.  It  may  liave  been  in  mine.     I  should  not  be  surprised. 

Question.  Did  anybody  call  on  Miller  with  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  him? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  no  money  ever  passed  through  my  hands  in  con- 
nexion with  that  transaction. 

Question.   Did  Mr.  Irving  pay  Miller? 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  lie  did. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  he  paid  him? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  call  on  Mr.  Baker  for  his  professional  opinion 
as  to  tlie  value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  1  did. 

Question.  Was  it  at  your  request  that  he  signed  the  paper? 

An.swer.    Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Did  you  pay  him  anything? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  go  and  examine  the  property? 

Answer.   I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  you  call  on  Mr.  Weeks  to  obtain  his  professional 
opinion? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Who  did? 


TESTIMONY.  165 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  What  induced  you  to  take  this  interest  in  having  the 
value  of  the  property  certified  to  ? 

Answer.  As  earnest  and  sincere  a  desire  to  oblige  a  friend  as,  I  think, 
I  ever  felt  upon  any  matter  that  interested  myself. 

Question.  Did  it  interest  you  in  a  pecuniary  sense? 

Answer.  It  did  not. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  having  been  upon  that  property,  at 
any  time,  in  company  with  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  and  Mr.  I. V.  Fowler? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I  was. 

Question.   When  was  that? 

Answer.  In  the  month  of  April.  The  whole  transaction  was  pretty 
much  through  March  and  April. 

Question.  Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler  were  going 
to  visit  this  property  on  the  day  you  met  them  at  Flushing? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  were  you  informed  of  it? 

Answer.  I  was  informed  the  day  before  that  they  were  going,  and 
that  they  were  strangers  in  that  part  of  the  country,  and  would  be 
glad  to  have  my  company,  as  I  was  informed  of  the  neighborhood. 

Question.  Who  told  you  this? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  whether  it  was  Fowler  or  Schell.  I 
knew  they  were  going,  and  I  prepared  myself  the  day  before  to  leave 
my  business. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  one  or  the  other  of  them 
who  told  you  ? 

Answer.  It  is  so  small  an  incident  that  it  did  not  live  in  my  memory. 
I  was  informed,  the  day  before,  that  these  gentlemen  were  coming  ; 
that  they  were  strangers  in  that  part  of  the  country,  and  it  would  be 
agreeable  to  them  if  I  met  them  and  accompanied  them.  Mr.  Irving 
and  I  met  them  at  Flushing,  with  a  carriage,  and  drove  to  the  place. 

Question.  Did  you  return  with  them  to  the  city  of  New  York? 

Answer.  I  returned  to  the  city  of  New  York  with  them  ;  Mr.  Schell 
and  Mr.  Fowler  having  hired  a  carriage  in  Flushing  to  bring  us 
home. 

Question.  Did  they,  to  your  knowledge^  sign  a  paper  certifying  to 
the  value  of  this  property? 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  they  did,  because  they  were  appointed  for 
that  purpose. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  that  they  did? 

Answer.  It  is  fastened  upon  my  mind  that  I  did  know  of  it ;  but 
how  I  came  to  know  of  it,  I  cannot  remember.  Their  business  was 
to  value  the  property,  and  that  they  did  fix  a  value  upon  it,  I  know 
I  noticed,  when  there,  the  caution  with  which  they  avoided  taking 
any  opinion  from  me.  I  walked  about  with  them,  and  showed  them 
where  I  lived,  but  they  refrained  from  holding  any  conversation  with 
me  as  to  the  value  of  the  property. 

Question.  Did  you  not,  a  few  days  after  they  were  on  this  place,  in 
company  with  Mr.  Richard  Schell,  on  the  steps  of  the  custom-house, 
or  at  some  other  place,  ask  whether  the  letter  containing  the  certifi- 
cate of  the  value  of  the  property,  to  have  been  signed  by  Augustus 
Schell  and  Isaac  V.  Fowler,  had  been  sent  to  Washington? 


16G  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  any  such  conversation.  I  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  meeting  these  gentlemen  on  business  every  day,  and 
may  have  done  so. 

Question.  Do  you  not  remember  going  with  liichard  Schell,  a  few 
days  after  this  visit,  to  call  on  his  brother,  the  collector,,  to  ascertain 
whether  the  certificate,  of  the  property  had  been  prepared,  signed 
and  sent  to  Washington  ? 

Answer.  I  tell  you  distinctly  I  do  not  recollect  going  with  Eichard 
Schell ;  but  I  remember  having  been  in  Augustus  Schell's  office  at 
about  that  time,  and  seeing  Richard  Schell  there.  We  did  not  go 
together,  or  had  we  made  an  appointment  to  be  there  together  ;  but  I 
recollect  meeting  Richard  Schell  there.  It  was  my  habit  to  be  in 
Augustus  Schell's  office  ;  we  were  somewhat  intimate. 

Question.  Were  you  engaged  with  Augustus  Schell  in  any  specula- 
tions in  property  ? 

Answer.  Never,  sir. 

Question.  Or  with  Richard  Schell ? 

Answer.  Never,  sir. 

Question.  Was  your  intimacy  with  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  of  a  busi- 
ness or  friendly  character? 

Answer.  It  was  in  both  senses,  at  times.  I  was  the  defendant  in 
a  suit  in  which  Mr.  Augustus  Scuell  was  the  plaintiff's  attorney. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  much  the  government  paid  for  this 
property  ? 

Answer.  I  know  by  public  rumor,  but  not  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  from  what  Mr.  Irving  told  you  ? 

Answer.  If  that  is  testimony,  I  will  say  that  he  told  me  that  he 
would  receive  ^  $200,000. 

Question.  Did  he  state  how  much  was  paid  by  the  government? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  $115,000. 

Question.   Do  you  know  when  that  was  paid? 

Answer.  I  know  it  was  within  the  first  half  of  the  month  of  July. 

Question.  Had  you  any  communications  with  the  War  Department, 
by  telegraphic  despatch  or  letter,  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  Never,  in  any  way  whatever. 

Question.  Did  you  see  Irving  on  the  day  the  $115,000  were  paid? 

Answer.  I  did  not.     I  was  not  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Question.  Had  you  any  communication  with  Richard  Schell  during 
the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  or  July,  in  relation  to  the 
purchase  of  this  property  or  the  consummation  of  the  purchase  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Schell's  office  and  mine  were  near  together,  and  when 
in  the  city  I  no  doubt  saw  him  everyday;  certainly  three  or  four 
times  a  week.  I  never  know  or  supposed  that  Mr.  Schell  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  negotiating  the  purchase  of  this  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point,  but  that  he  did  advance  Mr.  Irving  the  means  to  make  his 
purchase,  I  know  from  both  parties. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  he  made  those  advances? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  the  amount  he 
advanced  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.     1  never  saw  the  money  paid,  and  therefore  do 


TESTIMONY.  167 

not  know,  of  my  own  knowledge  ;  all  I  know  is  what  I  drew  from  the 
parties. 

Question.  From  Mr.  Schell  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  much  did  he  say  he  had  advanced  ? 

Answer.  I  heard  from  him  that  he  advanced  $45,000,  and  some 
additional  amount  of  interest.     The  sum  exceeded  $45,000. 

Question.   Did  Mr.  Irving  so  inform  you  also  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know,  from  the  statement  of  Schell  or  Irving, 
when  this  money  was  advanced  ? 

Answer.  It  was  between  the  1st  of  April  and  the  15th  of  July. 

Question.  You  were  not  present  when  the  money  was  advanced? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  received  the  money — whether  Mr. 
Irving,  or  William  C.  Wetmore  for  him? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  paid  the  incumbrances  on  this  prop- 
erty ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Irving  state  to  you  the  profit  he  made  on  this 
sale  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  He  never  stated  the  profit,  hut  I  knew  what  he  paid  and 
what  he  sold  it  for,  and  I  drew  my  own  inferences,  which  were,  that  he 
made  the  difference  between  $130,000  and  $20,000. 

Question.  Had  you  no  interest  in  that  $70,000  profit? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  No  interest,  directly  or  indirectly  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  or  from  state- 
ments made  by  Richard  Schell,  whether  he  had  any  interest  in  that 
profit  of  $70,000? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  him  say,  with  perfect  distinctness,  that  he 
had  no  interest  in  it,  beyond  the  commission  he  charged  for  the  ad- 
vance of  the  money  ? 

Question.  What  was  that? 

Answer.  Five  thousand  dollars.  Mr.  Irving  stated  that  he  thought 
it  was  an  extravagant  commission,  but  he  paid  it.  It  was  the  risk 
that  Mr.  Schell  ran  in  advancing  the  money  without  security? 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  John  C.  Mather  had  any  interest 
in  the  profit  of  $70,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Augustus  Schell  had  any  interest 
in  it? 
•Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Edward  Crosswell  had  any 
interest  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.     I  never  suspected  such  a  thing. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Latham  ? 

Answer.  Very  slightly,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  see  him  in  New  York  during  the  months  of 
March,  April,  May,  June,  or  July  ? 


168  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  have  seen  him  in  New  York  occasionally,  hut  I  do  not 
rememher  the  date.  I  know  nothing  of  him  in  connexion  with  this 
transaction. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  had  any  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  him  in  the  office  of  Mr.  Kichard  Schell 
within  the  last  year  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  him  there,  hut  not  often.  I  do  not  think  he 
is  often  in  New  York. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  speak  of  the  purchase  of  the  property  at 
Wilkins'  Point. 

Answer.  He  spoke  of  it ;  everybody  spoke  of  it ;  but  never  in  such 
a  connexion  as  to  make  me  believe  he  was  in  it. 

Question.  State  when  you  had  a  conversation  with  him  about  it,  and 
what  he  said. 

Answer.  PerhR2:)s  twice  or  three  times  I  met  Latham  and  spoke 
about  the  property.  We  discussed  whether  it  was  a  good  purchase, 
and  its  present  and  prospective  value.  Almost  every  man  at  that  day 
spoke  of  its  value. 

Question,   Did  he  ask  you  about  the  value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  am  generally  free  to  give  my  opinion  ;  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  asked  me. 

Question.  The  subject  of  your  conversation  was  the  value  of  the 
property  ? 

Answer.  The  value  of  the  property  was  discussed. 

Question.  Have  you  not  had  any  negotiations  by  yourself,  or  through 
others,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Irving,  in  relation  to  the  consummation 
of  this  purchase? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  If  there  are  papers  in  the  War  Department  hav- 
ing my  name  upon  them,  I  shall  freely  acknowledge  my  signature  ; 
but  I  have  no  recollection  of  writing  a  line,  or  being  asked  to  write  a 
line. 

Question.  Have  you  not  stated  that  you  might  have  drawn  up  the 
certificate  of  value  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  That  was  to  goto  the  War  Department? 

Answer.   I  did  not  know  anything  about  tliat. 

Question.  Is  there  no  understanding  between  Mr.  Irving  and  you, 
either  verbal  or  in  writing,  that  the  profits  of  this  purchase  by  the 
government  are  in  some  manner  to  inure  to  your  benefit  ? 

Answer.  I  wish  to  state  in  the  plainest  manner  man  can  use  words, 
that  there  is  not,  and  never  has  been. 

Question.  Did  Mr,  Irving  inform  you  that  the  whole  of  the  money 
he  paid  Weissman,or  his  trustee,  had  been  advanced  by  Richard  Schell? 

Answer.   He  did. 

Question.  The  whole  amount? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ;  Mr.  Schell  told  me  that  he  had  advanced 
§45,000  to  Mr.  Irving  to  enable  him  to  complete  his  purchase,  and 
Mr.  Irving  tohl  me  tliat  he  liad  borrowed  $45,000  from  Schell.  I 
learned  from  both  parties  that  the  commission  charged  for  that  ad- 
vance was  $5,000,  and  that  it  had  been  paid,  but  I  do  not  know  it  of 
my  own  knowledge. 


TESTIMONY.  169 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether,  any  parties,  except  Irving,  had 
any  interest  in  the  profit  of  $70,000,  after. Eicharcl  Schell  was  paid  his 
commission  of  $5,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  Mr.  Irving' s  private  matters 
in  that  business. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  an  interview  with  Weissman,  or  were  you 
ever  present  at  an  interview  had  by  another  person  with  him,  before 
the  government  agreed  to  purchase  this  property  in  relation  to  regu- 
lating the  sale? 

Answer.  I  stated  some  time  since  that  I  knew  of  the  purchase  of  the 
property,  because  I  was  present  as  a  witness  at  the  signing  of  the 
paper. 

Question.  Was  that  paper  the  agreement  to  sell  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Irving  asked  me,  as  a  friend,  to  accompany 
him  to  Wissman's  house  to  witness  the  signing  of  the  paper.  I  went 
with  him,  but  remained  in  the  carriao^o  while  they  discussed  the 
business;  and  when  they  were  through,  Mr.  Irving  said  to  me:  "Will 
you  be  kind  enough  to  witness  the  signing  of  this  gentleman's  name?" 
I  drew  up  and  asked  Weissman  whether  that  was  his  name.  He  said 
*'yes  ;"  and  then  I  signed  my  name  as  a  witness. 

Question  Did  you  ever  see  any  plan  of  this  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  the  property  laid  out  in  five  and  ten  acre  lots  ? 

Answer.  Yes^  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  heard  beforehand  that  there  was  such  a 
plan  in  existence,  or  that  the  property  had  been  so  arranged  or  sur- 
veyed for  the  purpose  of  selling  it  ? 

Answer.  Oh,  yes  ;  it  was  the  familiar  talk  about  the  country  ;  I 
remember,  before  that,  when  Mr.  Irving  first  consulted  me  about  pur- 
chasing it,  he  said  that  he  had  two  objects  in  view  in  buying:  first, 
to  sell  it  to  the  government  if  he  could,  or,  what  he  thought  a  better 
speculation,  lay  it  out  in  villa  lots. 

Question.  Do  you  think  the  plan  you  saw  was  one  gotten  up  for  the 
occasion,  or  did  it  look  as  if  it  had  been  drawn  a  year  or  two  ? 

Answer.  It  looked  asif  ithad  beendrawn  sometime;  it  was  well  worn. 

Question.  Is  Cryder's  Point  nearer  New  York  than  Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.  It  is  two  miles  nearer. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  land  being  for  sale  there  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  it  was  worth  ? 

Answer.  It  was  worth  from  $1,000  to  $1,500  an  acre. 

Question.  Is  it  more  accessible  than  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  for  building  purposes. 

Question.  And  is  worth  from  $1,000  to  $1,500? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  should  think  that  the  property  on  that  point 
is  worth  $1,500.  Cryder's  Point  lies  in  front  of  an  extensive 
swamp;  and  I  would  take  Wilkins'  Point  at  $2,000  an  acre  in  prefer- 
ence to  Cryder's  at  $1,500. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  negotiations  between  Wiss- 
man  an  i  Simeon  Draper,  the  last  two  or  three  years,  in  reference  to 
the  sale  of  this  property  ? 


170  TESTBIOXY. 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  know  nothing  that  I  could  venture  to  offer  as 
testimony.  I  had  some  conversation  with  Wissman,  but  he  speaks 
such  very  broken  English  that  it  is  with  the  greatest  difficulty  you  can' 
understand  him.  I  believe  he  had  a  conversation  with  Draper,  but 
probably  you  have  that  in  the  testimony  better  than  I  can  give  it. 

June  1,  1858. 

Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  read  over  his  testimony  and  addressed  the 
following  note  to  the  committee  : 

"  In  the  answer  to  a  question  on  page  70  of  the  printed  copy,  by 
some  misapprehension  on  my  j)art,  or  otherwise,  an  error  has  occurred 
which  requires  correction  : 

^*  Question.  Did  you  not,  a  few  days  after  they  were  in  this  place  in 
company  with  Mr.  Richard  Schell,  on  the  steps  of  the  custom-house  or 
at  some  other  place,  ask  whether  the  letter  containing  the  certificate 
of  the  value  of  the  property,  to  have  been  signed  by  Augustus  Schell 
and  Isaac  Y.  Fowler,  had  been  sent  to  Washington  ?" 

I  desire  that  the  answer  may  stand  as  follows  : 

Answer.  I  have  been  for  many  years  intimate  with  Mr.  R.  Schell, 
and  our  business  relations  have  been  frequent  ;  my  acquaintance  with 
Mr.  I.  Y.  Fowler  is  very  slight  and  of  recent  date  ;  no  business  rela- 
tions have  ever  existed  between  us  ;  with  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  my 
relations  are  social  and  friendly^  rarely  having  any  connexion  what- 
ever with  business  of  any  kind  ;  my  visits  at  his  private  office  have 
not  exceeded  a  half  dozen  in  the  last  three  years. 

I  respectfully  ask  that  the  above  may  be  received  in  place  of  the 
sentence  printed.  P.  M.  WETMORE. 

On  motion,  ordered  by  the  committee  that  the  above  correction  be 
appended  to  the  testimony  of  Prosper  M.  Westmore. 

JAS.  B.  SHENDAN,  Stenograplier , 

Jacob  Cole,  sworn. 

Question.   Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  In  Brooklyn. 

Question.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  I  am  in  the  real  estate  business. 

Question.  You  are  a  member  of  the  firm  of  James  Cole  &  Son  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Are  you  the  most  extensive  real  estate  agent  on  Long 
Island  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  business? 

Answer.  Twenty  years. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  property  in  the  town  of  Flush- 
ing? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  Wilkins'  Point  property? 

Answer    Yes,  sir. 

(Question.  Do  you  know  whether  it  Avas  in  the  market  for  several 
years  before  government  purchased  it? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  ;  but  all  the  property  in  that 
nei.trhborhood  is  always  in  the  market,  and  always  to  be  got,  plenty  of 


TESTIMONY.  171 

it.     You  always  see  signs  up  ;  but  it  is  generally  operated  by  Flush- 
ing naen.     We  never  bother  with  it. 

Question.  Are  you  much  acquainted  with  property  in  that  neigh- 
borhood ? 

Answer.  Not  in  that  neighborhood.     It  is  poor  paying  property. 
After  you  go  beyond  Flushing,  there  is  very  little  call  for  property. 
J     Question.  You  say  you  know  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  good  judge  of  the  value  of 
property  in  that  neighborhood  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  do  you  consider  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  worth, 
including  the  improvements — the  110  acres? 

Witness,  The  bare  land  ? 

Mr.  Haskin.  What  is  the  land  worth  an  acre  ? 

Answer.  1  should  consider  it  worth  from  $500  to  $550  an  acre  at 
the  point. 

Question.  That  is  irrespective  of  the  improvements  upon  the  prop- 
erty ? 

Answer.  That  is  the  value  of  the  land. 

Question.  Is  there  a  swamp  there? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Are  there  any  improvements  on  it  ? 

Answer.  None  but  very  old  ones. 

Question.  Do   you  know  of  any  other  property  for  sale  in   that 
neighborhood  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  any  map  of  this  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point,  in  villa  plats? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Cryder'^  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  is  the  property  worth  there? 

Answer.  The  difference  is  very  trifling.     It  is  just  as  hard  to  get 
at  by  steamboat. 

Question.   Why,  then,   is  a  steamboat  landing  nearer   to  it  than' 
Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  you  have  a  carriage  drive  of  four  or  five  miles. 
The  land  there  is  worth  about  $640  or  $650  an  acre. 

Question    Do  you  not  know  of  any  land  for  sale  in  that  neighbor- 
hood ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ;  there  is   a  small  piece   of  five   acres   for  sale 
near  it. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  that  a  good  price  for  it? 

Answer.  I  would  consider  that  a  good  market  price.     It  would  not 
bring  that  price  now  at  the  rate  property  is  selling. 

Question.   What  do  you  consider  the  property  was  worth  in  the 
early  part  of  last  year  ? 

Answer.  About  that  price,  from  $500  to  $550  an  acre,  taken  over 
one  hundred  acres. 

Question.  And  including  the  water  front? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


172  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  property  near  Wilkins'  Point  which 
could  have  heen  purchased  within  that  price  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  a  property  directly  opposite,  having  a  water 
front  but  not  extending  out  in  a  point. 

Question.  Whose  property  was  that? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  the  owner. 

Question.  How  much  can  it  he  purchased  for  ? 

Answer.  There  are  80  acres  which  can  be  purchased  for  |25,000. 

Question.  Has  it  a  good  water  front? 

Answer.   It  fronts  on  a  little  bay. 

Question.  Shoal  water  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  has  not  bold  water,  like  at  a  point. 

Monday,  May  10,  1858. 

Committee  met  at  10  o'clock. 

Present :   Messrs.  Haskin,  (chairman,)  Hall,  Florence,  and  Wood. 

John  C.  Mather  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  chairman  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  ricside  ? 

Answer.  I  reside  in  New  York  city. 

Question.  You  are  a  State  senator? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was  elected  last  fall  from  the  fourth  senatorial 
district. 

Question.  Was  Eichard  Schell  elected  at  the  same  time  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  did  you  first  hear,  and  from  whom,  of  the  pur- 
chase by  the  government  of  property  opposite  Fort  Schuyler  for  forti- 
fication purposes  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  you  when  ;  I  do  not  remember  dates,  but  it 
was  last  season. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  receive  the  first  information  of  it? 

Answer.  I  think  I  received  my  first  information  on  the  subject  from 
Richard  Schell,  and  it  was  in  tliis  way  :  he  stated  that  he  had  agreed 
to  make  a  considerable  advance  to  a  Mr.  Irving. 

Question.  When  did  this  occur? 

Answer.  It  was  a  very  short  time  previous  to  the  sale  or  purchase 
of  the  property  by  the  government ;  I  cannot  remember  the  month. 

Question.  What  was  the  substance  of  his  statement  to  you? 

Answer.  He  stated  he  had  agreed  to  make  a  pretty  large  advance 
to  Mr.  Irving. 

Question.  Did  he  state  at  whose  request  he  made  the  advance  or 
was  to  make  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  stated  it  was  to  Mr.  Irving. 

Question.  What  did  he  say  toyouat  the  timein  relation  to  the  subject? 

Answer.  That  Mr.  Irving  had  purchased  some  property,  which  he 
expected  to  sell  to  the  government. 

Question.  Did  he  state  what  amount  he  expected  to  get  for  it? 

Answer.   I  do  not  think  lie  did. 

Question.   How  much  did  he  state  he  was  to  advance? 

Answer.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  it  was  some  |40,000  or 
$50,000. 


TESTIMONY.  173 

Question.  Where  did  he  state  this  to  you? 

Answer.  In  his  office. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Irving  ? 

Answer.  I  know  him  now  ;  I  did  not  at  that  time. 

Question.  When  did  you  become  acquainted  with  him? 

Answer.  I  think  I  saw  him  once  or  twice  about  the  time  the  matter 
was  being  consummated. 

Question.   Where? 

Answer.  I  rather  think  the  first  time  I  ever  saw  him  was  in 
Washington. 

Question.  When  was  that  ? 

Answer.  It  was  about  the  time  the  purchase  was  made  by  the 
government. 

Question.  At  w^hat  place  did  you  see  him? 

Answer.  At  Willard's  Hotel,  I  think. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  meet  him  at  the  War  Department  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  saw"  him  there. 

Question.   Who  introduced  you  to  him? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  ;  I  might  have  seen  him  before  I  met 
him  here  ;  I  think  the  first  I  saw  of  him  was  here. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  the  government  purchased? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  the  day. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  E.  Schell  here  at  the  time  you  met  Irving  here? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  believe  he  was  not. 

Question.  Was  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer,  1  do  not  remember. 

Question.    Do  you  remember  who  introduced  you  to  Irving? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.   Was  it  not  General  Wetmore  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not ;  do  not  know  but  it  may  have  been  ;  I  do  not 
remember  who  it  was. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Irving  at  this 
time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  no  particular  conversation  ;  Mr.  Schell  had  made 
these  advances  upon  this  property,  and  felt  very  solicitous  about  get- 
ting his  pay,  and  he  wished  me,  while  I  was  here,  to  render  any 
assistance  I  could,  and  to  keep  a  little  watch  over  the  thing  for  him. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  in  what  month  this  was  ? 

Answer.  I  have  nothing  to  refresh  my  memory  on  the  subject. 

Question.  Willards'  books  will  show  ? 

Answer.   I  suppose  they  will. 

Question,  Did  you,  in  compliance  with  Mr.  Schell's  request,  look 
after  this  matter  at  the  War  Department  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  a  little. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  there? 

Answer.  I  made  some  inquiries  about  the  probability  of  the  gov- 
ernment taking  the  property.  * 

Question.  To  whom  did  you  make  these  inquiries? 

Answer.  I  think  I  had  some  conversation  with  the  Secretary  of 
War  on  the  subject.  I  certainly  had  before  or  after  the  sale  ;  I  don't 
know  which. 

Question.  What  was  the  result  of  your  conversation  with  the  Sec- 
retary ? 


1 74  TESTBfONY. 

Answer.  I  think  the  Secretary  of  War  took  the  ground  that  Mr. 
Irving  was  asking  too  much  for  his  property,  which  I  thought  was 
$2,000  an  acre. 

Question.   Did  he  state  what  he  would  do  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  I  think  he  said  he  should  have  to  submit  the  matter  to  the 
President  and  Cabinet. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  not  remember  the  month  in  which  this 
occurred  ?  I  will  refresh  your  memory  by  stating  to  you  that  the 
acce[)tance  of  the  offer  to  sell  by  the  Secretary  of  War  was  on  the  28th 
of  April. 

Witness.  Was  it  as  early  as  that? 

The  Chairman.  It  was. 

Witness.  Can  you  refresh  my  memory  by  telling  me  w4ien  the 
money- was  paid? 

The  Chairman.  It  was  paid  in  July. 

Witness  The  conversation  must  have  occured,  then,  a  short  time 
previous  to  that. 

Question.  Previous  to  what  time? 

Answer.  The  28th  of  April ;  I  should  think  I  had  some  conver- 
sation with  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  Schell  here  then? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Had  he  been  here? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  he  had. 

Question.  Did  you  at  that  time  have  any  conversation  with  Mr. 
Drinkard,  the  chief  clerk  of  the  War  Department,  in  relation  to  the 
matter  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  had  any  conversation  with  him  ;  if  I 
had,  it  was  of  a  general  character.  I  do  not  remember  any  such  con- 
versation. 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation  w^ith  Kobert  W.  Latham  in  re- 
lation to  this  matter  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not.     I  do  not  remember  that  I  had. 

Question.  Mr.  Latham  has  a  desk  or  seat  in  the  ofHce  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  has  he  not? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of.  He  has  a  brother  who  has  a  seat 
there.     I  was  introduced  to  him. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Kobert  W.  Latham? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  him? 

Answer.  1  think  the  first  time  I  saw  him  must  have  been  two  or 
three  years  ago,     I  know  very  little  of  him. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  relation  he  occupied  to  Governor, 
Floyd  in  March,  April,  May,  June,  July,  and  August,  1857? 

Answer.  I  had  understood  that  he  was  his  agent  for  his  private 
business  in  Virginia. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that-from  Governor  Floyd? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  cannot  say  from  whom. 

(^)uestion.  You  say  you  do  not  think  you  spoke  to  him  at  that  time. 
Did  he  to  you  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  did,  or  I  did  ;  I  am  not  certain. 

Question.  Did  you  not  at  that  time  urge  upon  Governor  Floyd  the 
consummation  of  this  purchase  ? 


TESTIMONY.  175 

Answer.  I  think  I  asked  him  what  the  probability  was  about  the 
government  taking  it. 

Question.  What  was  his  reply  ? 

Answer.  He  could  not  give  any  definite  answer  ;  bethought  $2,000 
an  acre  was  too  much  for  it ;  but  he  could  not  tell  till  he  had  submit- 
ted it  to  the  President  and  Cabinet. 

Question.  Did  you  not,  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Schell,  call  on  the  Attor- 
ney General,  or  his  assistant,  Mr.  Gillett,  in  relation  to  the  purchase 
of  this  property? 

Answer.  I  think  I  did  call  on  Mr.  Gillett  once  in  relation  to  it. 

Question.   For  Mr.  Schell? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   When  ? 

Answer.  Some  time  before  its  close,  and  previous  to  the  payment  of 
the  money. 

Question.  Were  you  on  here  at  the  time  William  C.  Wetmorecame 
on  in  relation  to  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government  ? 

Answ^er.  I  think  Mr.  Wetmore  was  here  at  one  time  when  I  was 
here. 

Question.  Did  you  not  come  on  together  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not.  We  were  in  Washington  at  the  same  time  ; 
I  do  not  think  we  came  on  together. 

Question.  Did  you  precede  him  a  day  or  two,  or  arrive  here  a  day 
or  two  after  he  came  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  how  it  was. 

Question.  You  put  up  at  Willards'  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  might  have  come  on  the  same  day  ;  I  do  not 
remember. 

Question.  Did  you,  in  company  with  Mr.  Wetmore,  call  on  the 
Attorney  General  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Question.  Did  you  call  on  Gov.  Floyd,  or  Mr.  Drinkard^  or  any  one 
connected  with  the  War  Department,  at  that  time  with  Mr.  Wetmore? 

Answer,  I  think  not;  I  am  not  certain. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  at  the  Attorney  General's  office  ? 

Answer.  The  object  in  calling  there  was  in  reference  to  the  title.  I 
do  not  know  but  that  I  introduced  Mr. Wetmore  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral ;  I  am  not  certain. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  month  this  was  in  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  were  here  on  the  last  4th 
of  July. 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  Gov.  Floyd? 

Answer.  I  have  known  him  personally  ever  since  he  delivered  his 
speech  in  Wall  street,  some  year  or  two  since. 

Question.  That  was  in  the  political  campaign  of  1856? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  were  introduced  to  him  at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  had  met  him  before,  but  it  was  the  first  time 
I  had  a  personal  acquaintance  with  him. 

Question.  Who  introduced  him  to  you  ? 

Answer,  I  do  not  remember. 


176  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Were  you  in  liis  company  with  Mr.  Richard  Schell? 

Answer.  No_,  sir. 

Question.  In  his  company  with  Augustus  or  Richard? 

Answer.  No_,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  Richard  introduced  me  to  him. 
He  was  staying  at  the  New  York  Hotel  at  the  time.    I  saw  him  there. 

Question.  Since  that  time  have  you  heeu  on  intimate  terms  with 
him? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  more  or  less.  I  have  met  him  in  New  York  fre- 
quently. 

Question.  Did  you  occupy  any  official  relation  to  the  War  Depart- 
ment in  the  month  of  March,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  was  appointed  a  special  agent,  by  the  War  Department, 
to  examine  into  the  condition  of  Fort  Ripley,  in  Minnesota  Territory. 
.  Question.  Was  that  in  the  month  of  March? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  the  month. 

Question.  Had  you  any  other  appointment  from  the  War  Depart- 
ment at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  any  other  in  the  month  of  April? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  recollect  ? 

Question.  In  May  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  had. 

Question.  In  June  or  July  ? 

Answer.  It  seems  to  me  it  was  later  than  March  that  I  was  ap- 
pointed in  the  Fort  Ripley  matter? 

The  Chairman.  I  speak  of  any  other  appointment  from  the  War 
Department  in  either  of  these  months. 

Witness,  I  do  not  remember.  I  was  appointed  to  go  out  and  make 
examinations  into  the  condition  of  Fort  Ripley,  the  number  of  squat- 
ters upon  it,  and  to  make  a  report  in  regard  to  its  general  condition. 
I  did  so,  and  it  seems  to  me  I  was  out  there  in  June  or  July. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  not  in  some  other  way  connected  with 
the  War  Department  in  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  or 
July,  besides  having  in  charge  the  Fort  Ripley  investigation  ? 

Witness.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  was.  I  was  appointed  in  refer- 
ence to  Rock  Island.  The  appointment  of  agent  for  the  fort  was 
tendered  me. 

Question.  When  did  that  occur  ? 

Answer.  It  was  after  that. 

Question.  After  July  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  so. 

Question.  Had  you  not  an  appointment  in  connexion  with  Fort 
Snelling? 

Answer.   Oli !  no,  sir  ;  not  the  slightest,  directly  or  indirectly. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  the  money  was  paid  by  the  govern- 
ment for  tlii8  Wilkins'  Point  property? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  know  that  the  aggregate  amount  they  paid 
for  the  property  was  $200,000. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  much  was  to  be  paid  in  cash? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  the  payment  was  made? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Were  you  not  informed  of  it  by  Richard  Schell? 


J 


TESTIMONY.  177 

Answer.  Kot  that  I  remember. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Irving  inform  you  of  it  ? 

Answer.  I  had  very  little  conversation  with  Mr.  Irving. 

Question.  Did  you  give  your  opinion  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  or  to 
any  person  connected  with  the  War  Department,  or  to  Mr.  R.  W. 
Latham,  as  to  the  value  of  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  know  anything  about  it  except  from 
hearsay.  I  heard  expressions  of  opinion  as  to  its  value  from  various 
parties. 

Question.  Who  were  they  ? 

Answer.  I  had  heard  Mr.  Edward  A.  Lawrence,  of  Flushing,  a 
member  of  the  assembly,  speak  of  it. 

Question    What  opinion  did  he  express  as  to  its  value  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  said  it  was  worth  §2,000  an  acre. 

Question.  Where  was  that  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell. 

Question.  Was  it  at  Mr.  Mickle's  office? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  At  Mr.  Schell's  office? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  He  is  a  member  of  the  legislature,  and  I  think 
it  was  likely  at  Albany. 

Question.  Was  this  last  winter,  since  the  government  purchased 
the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  hear  any  expressions  of  opinion  as  to  the  value 
of  the  property  before  the  government  purchased  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  had  heard  similar  expressions.  It  seems  to 
me  I  heard  a  Mr.  Turner,  of  Flushing,  talk  of  it.  He  is  a  man  I  have 
known  some  little  time,  but  I  do  not  know  his  locality. 

Question.  Is  he  the  boss  painter  at  the  Brooklyn  navy  yard? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  holds  that  position  or  not. 

Question.  Who  have  you  heard  express  an  opinion  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember.  I  was  thinking  I  had  heard  Mr, 
Grinnell ;  but  I  am  not  certain  I  did. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Wetmore 
in  relation  to  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government  before  July^ 
1857? 

Answer.  I  think  on  one  occasion  I  saw  him.  I  was  in  Schell's 
office  and  Wetmore  came  in,  and  I  heard  him  give  his  opinion  of  the 
property,  the  safety  of  his  (Schell's)  advances,  the  value  of  the  pro- 
perty, and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  Mr.  Schell  seemed  a  little  anxious 
about  the  advances  he  made  or  was  about  making;  and,  I  think,  asked 
Wetmore  about  the  value  of  the  property,  and  Wetmore  gave  him  his 
views  upon  it.    That  is  all,  I  think,  I  have  heard  Wetmore  say  about  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  were  interested  in  the  sale  of  that  pro- 
perty to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  suppose  I  do  not  know  of  but  one  man  who 
was  interested  in  it,  and  that  was  Mr.  Irving,  except  Mr.  Schell  said 
he  was  to  be  pretty  liberally  paid  for  his  advances,  &c.,  in  the 
matter. 

Question.  How  much  was  he  to  be  paid? 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549—12 


178  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  When  was  this? 

Answer.  Before  the  money  was  paid. 

Question.  How  much  was  paid? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Was  Schell  your  broker  ? 

Answer.  We  have  had  various  money  transactions  for  a  few  years 
past. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  the  money  was  paid  the  government 
on  account  of  the  Fort  Snelling  purchase? 

Answer.  I  should  think  some  time  in  July. 

Question.  About  what  time  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  about  the  20th. 

Question.  Who  paid  it  ? 

Answer.  It  was  paid  by  Mr.  Steele,,  Mr.  Schell,  and  myself. 

Question.  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  much  did  Richard  Schell  pay  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  what  the  amount  was  ;  Mr.  Steele  paid 
$6,000  or  $7,000,  and  Mr.  Schell  and  myself  the  balance. 

Question.  What  was  the  amount  paid  ? 

Answer.  The  whole  amount  paid  was  $30,000  ;  Mr.  Steele,  I  think, 
paid  $10,000,  and  Mr.  Schell  and  myself,  $20,000. 

Question.  How  much  of  that  did  you  pay? 

Answer.  One-half.  Mr.  Schell  and  myself  paid  the  balance. 

Question.  You  paid  $10,000  of  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was  to  pay,  of  course,  my  share  of  it. 

Question.  Did  not  Mr.  Schell  draw  the  check  or  draft  for  the  whole 
of  it? 

Witness.  In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  think  you  have  any  right  to 
ask  any  of  these  questions  ;  you  are  not  investigating  Fort  Snelling. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  for  the  committee  to  decide  whether  the  ques- 
tion has  a  bearing  upon  the  subject  under  investigation. 

By  Mr.  Wood.  Has  it  any  connexion  with  the  subject  we  are  in- 
quiring into? 

Witness.  Not  the  slightest. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  have  no  difficulty  in  seeing  that 
the  question  has  a  connexion  with  this  investigation.  I  ask  you 
whether  Schell  did  not  pay  the  whole  amount  which  was  to  be  paid 
for  himself  and  you  ? 

Witness.  No,  sir  ;  we  paid  it  jointly  ;  Mr.  Schell  miglit  have  paid 
more  ;  I  think  likely  he  did  ;  but  we  have  an  account  between  our- 
selves, a  private  account,  and,  of  course,  I  was  to  account  for  one-half 
of  it. 

Question.  Wlio  drew  the  check  ? 

Answer.  I  think  tliat  was  done  in  Mr.  Schell's  name. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Florence.)  And  if  he  paid  it,  he  paid  it  on  his 
behalf  and  your  behalf? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  paid  it  for  himself  and  me,  of  course. 

Question,  (by  the  Cluiirman.)  To  your  knowledge,  did  Mr.  Schell 


TESTIMONY.  179 

pay  any  money  towards  the  purchase  of  the  property  at  New  Bedford, 
which  was  bought  to  sell  to  the  government  ? 

Witness.  Are  you  authorized  to  investigate  the  New  Bedford 
matter  ? 

The  committee  are  authorized  to  elicit  all  the  facts  connected  with 
this  transaction. 

Witness.  I  decline  answering  all  questions  in  relation  to  any  other 
fort  than  that  at  Wilkins'  Point. 

The  Chairman.  I  ask  you  whether  Richard  Schell  did  or  did  not 
advance  money  to  you  or  others  on  account  of  the  purchase  of  property 
at  New  Bedford,  subsequently  sold  to  the  government,  after  the  9th 
day  of  July,  1857? 

Witness.  As  you  are  not  investigating  the  New  Bedford  matter,  I 
decline  answering  the  question,  unless  a  majority  of  the  commitee  de- 
cide I  shall. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  state  to  the  committee  that  it  is  my  object  to 
connect  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  purchase  and  sale  of  the  New 
Bedford  property  to  the  government,  with  the  facts  and  circumstances 
connected  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  this  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point. 

Witness.  My  answer  to  that  is,  that  if  Mr.  Haskin  desires  to  in- 
vestigate the  New  Bedford  matter,  he  must  ask  Congress  to  give  him 
the  power. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  think  the  question  had  better  be  waived. 

Mr.  Wood.  It  had,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  it  has  a  direct 
bearing  upon  the  matter  now  under  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  my  purpose  in  putting  this  question  to  connect 
the  two  transactions. 

Witness.  It  is  investigating  another  matter  with  which  the  com- 
mittee have  nothing  to  do. 

Mr.  Wood.  If  the  chairman  will  show  us  that  this  question  will  lead 
to  something  touching  this  investigation,  I  think  it  is  a  proper  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  shall  have  no  objection  to  the  question,  if  I  knew  it 
had  some  connexion  with  this  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  intend  to  go  into  the  details  of  the  New 
Bedford  transaction  ;  but  this  is  an  important  question,  in  my  judg- 
ment, directly  bearing  upon  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected 
with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point. 

Witness.  I  shall  be  very  much  surprised  if  the  committee  decide 
that  the  question  must  be  answered. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  suppose  that  the  committee  are  aware  that  many  ques- 
tions have  been  asked  and  answered  by  witnesses  that  really  had  no 
connexion  with  the  subject,  and  we  have  seen  that  they  had  not  as 
the  investigation  proceeded.  A  witness  is  bound  to  answer,  and  state 
everything  he  knew  relating  to  the  sale  and  purchase  of  this  Wil- 
kins' Point  property  by  the  government ;  but  when  he  is  asked  ques- 
tions like  the  one  to  which  he  now  objects,  and  answers  that  he  knows 
nothing,  showing  a  connexion  between  the  question  and  the  matter 
under  investigation,  I  think  the  committee  ought  to  proceed  with 
caution. 


80  TESTIMONY. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  does  not  say  he  knows  nothing  in  re- 
gard to  it,  but  raises  an  objection  to  the  question,  and  refuses  to  an- 
swer it.     Do  the  committee  overrule  the  question  ? 

After  consultation,  it  was  decided  that  the  question  should  be  waived 
for  the  present. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  Did  Mr.  Schell  advance  money  to  you  or 
others   for  the  purchase  of  any  other  property  for  the  government, 
which  you  have  reason  to  believe  came  from  the  proceeds  of  this  sale  ? 
Mr.  Florence.  Which  he  knows  ;  he  has  no  reason  to  believe  any- 
thing. 

Witness.  In  answer  to  that  question,  no,  sir. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  Did  you  directly  or  indirectly  advance 
any  money  from  the  purchase  of  this  property  to  buy  any  other  ? 
Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.    Did  he  advance  you  any  money  after 
July  to  purchase  from  any  party  property  to  sell  to  the  goverment  ? 
Answer.  I  think  not. 

Question.  Did  he  not,  after  the  9th  of  July,  advance  you  money  to 
go  towards  the  payment  for  property  at  New  Bedford  which  was  sub- 
sequently sold  to  the  government  ? 

Witness.  I  decline  answering  anything  connected  with  any  facts 
over  which  you  have  no  cognizance. 

Mr.  Florence.  You  have  answered  "■  No  "  to  a  question  which  pre- 
cedes this  and  covers  it,  and  why  decline  to  answer  now  ?  You  say, 
in  answer  to  the  other  question  :  No  ;  that  he  did  not  advance  any 
money  for  that  purpose,  and  I  would  not  decline  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion now,  which  you  can  answer  negatively,  when  there  is  no  good  to 
result  from  it. 

Witness.  Mr.  Haskin  does  not  ask  that  question  with  any  design 
to  connect  any  body  with  this  fort ;  he  is  after  another  fort  in  the 
question. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  right  to  state  what  my  design  is, 
because  I  have  not  informed  you  of  it,  and  you  cannot  enter  into  the 
reasons  which  govern  me  in  asking  the  question.  I  submit  to  the 
committee,  that  a  witness  who,  from  his  own  statement,  was  connected 
with  the  government  as  its  officer  in  relation  to  the  disposition  of  Fort 
Kipley,  has  no  right  to  set  up  his  judgment  here  over  and  above  that 
of  the  committee  when  a  question  is  asked  him.  I  proposed  a  question 
growing  out  of  the  question  put  from  the  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, (Mr.  Hall.)  The  witness  had  already  answered  one  similar  in 
puri)()rt,  and  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Florence)  very 
properly  suggested  to  him  that,  having  so  answered,  there  was,  in  his 
opinion,  no  propriety  in  his  withholding  an  answer  to  this  ;  but  he 
still  refuses.  1  say  that,  as  an  officer  of  the  government,  he  should 
have  no  hesitation  in  answering  any  question  bearing  even  remotely 
upon  tliis  transaction  which  may  be  asked  him.  We  all  know  that 
in  an  investigation  of  this  kind,  where,  perliaps,  tliere  has  been  a  com- 
bination of  individuals  to  swindle  the  government 

Witness.  You  must  not  use  that  language  before  me. 
The  Chairman.   Where  there  has  been  a  combination  of  individuals 
to  swindle  the  government,  that  those  persons  come  here  with  a  design 


TESTIMONY.  181 

of  evading  and  avoiding  questions,  and  therefore  a  greater  latitude  is 
allowable  in  their  examination,  to  elicit  the  whole  truth.  I  submit 
to  the  committee  that  an  answer  to  this  question  should  be  required. 

Witness.  In  the  first  place,  in  regard  to  the  allusion  to  the  swin- 
dling part 

Mr.  Florence.  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  take  that  remark  of  the 
chairman  to  yourself,  for  you  have  testified  that  you  had  nothing  to 
do  with  it,  and  he  did  not  mention  your  name. 

Witness.  In  the  first  place,  I  deny  that  I  am  an  officer  of  the 
government.  I  was  appointed  for  a  specific  object.  I  was  sent  out 
to  examine  the  condition  of  Fort  Ripley,  the  number  of  squatters 
upon  it,  &c.,  and  to  report  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  I  had  nothing 
to  do  with  selling  it ;  when  I  made  my  report,  I  declined  having 
anything  further  to  do  with  it 

The  witness  was  here  interrupted  by  the  committee,  who  desired  an 
answer  to  the  following  question,  which  had  been  put  to  him  before 
by  the  chairman,  but  then  waived  because  he  objected  to  it. 

Question.  I  ask  you  whether  Richard  Schell  did,  or  did  not,  advance 
money  to  you  or  others  on  account  of  the  purchase  of  the  property  at 
New  Bedford,  after  the  9th  day  of  July,  1857,  which  property  was 
sold  subsequently  to  the  United  States  ? 

Witness.  I  will  answer.  He  did  not.  I  am  not  going  to  answer 
for  others  ;  I  say,  he  did  not  to  me. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Did  he  not  advance  to  others,  for  and 
at  your  request,  written  or  otherwise  ? 

Witness.  I  decline  answering  that,  unless  the  committee  decide  I 
shall. 

Mr.  Florence.  I  do  not  see  that  it  is  pertinent. 

Mr.  Wood.  I  think  we  had  better  pass  the  question. 

Mr.  Hall.  If  the  question  was  amended  so  as  to  connect  it  particu- 
larly with  the  matter  we  are  investigating_,  I  should  be  in  favor  of  it ; 
but  in  its  present  shape  I  do  not  think  we  can  insist  upon  an  answer, 
if  the  witness  declines. 

The  question  was  overruled — the  Chairman  in  favor  of  it,  Messrs. 
Hall,  Florence,  and  Wood  against  it. 

Question.  In  the  month  of  April,  1857,  were  you  at  the  War 
Department  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  was  or  not. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  Governor  Floyd  in  the  month  of 
April  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  Did  you  see  Latham  in  that  month? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  Were  you  in  Washington  at  that  time? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  Were  you  here  in  the  month  of  May,  1857? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  was  or  not. 

Question.  Did  you  see  R.  W.  Latham  during  that  month  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  you  see  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  during  that  month  ? 


182  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  Very  likely  ;  I  do  not  remember.  I  saw  him  occasionally 
during  the  year. 

Question.  Were  you  here  during  the  month  of  June,  1857? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  here  whether  I  was  or  not ;  very  likely. 

Question.  Did  you  see  Governor  Floyd  in  that  month  ? 

Answer.  Possibly. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  communication  with  him  in  relation 
to  the  sale  and  purchase  of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  during  June, 
1857? 

Answer.  I  have  stated  to  you  all  the  conversations  I  had  with  him. 

Question.  I  ask  you  whether,  in  the  month  of  June,  1857,  you  had 
any  conversation  with  Governor  Floyd  in  relation  to  the  sale  and 
purchase  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  had  some  conversations  with  him,  but  whether  in  the 
months  of  May  or  June  I  do  not  recollect.    It  was  previous  to  the  sale. 

Question.  Did  you  give  him  your  judgment  in  relation  to  the  value 
of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Question.  Did  you  state  to  him  at  that  time  that  Richard  Schell 
was  interested  in  the  transaction  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Question.  Did  you  state  who  were  interested  in  the  transaction  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Richard  Schell  had  any  interest 
in  the  transaction  as  one  of  the  purchasers  of  the  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point  from  the  original  owner  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  had  not.     I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Had  you  any  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Directly  or  indirectly  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  In  the  purchase  from  the  original  owner  or  the  sale  to 
the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  except  as  acting  for  Mr.  Schell  in  the  matter. 

Question.    What  interest  had  you  growing  out  of  that  ? 

Answer.  No  interest  beyond  the  request  of  Mr.  Schell  to  assist  him 
in  the  matter.  He  said  he  could  not  be  in  Washington,  and  wanted 
me  to  assist  him  in  the  matter. 

Question.  Had  you  any  pecuniary  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  any  pecuniary  interest  in  the  proceeds  of  that 
sale  directly  or  indirectly,  in  writing  or  orally? 

Answer.  I  suppose  the  only  man  who  had  any  interest  in  it,  as  I 
stated  before,  was  George  Irving.     I  have  none. 

Question.   Directly  or  indirectly? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  No  contingent  interest? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whotlier  Prosper  M.  Wetniore  lias  or  has 
not  an  interest  in  the  ])roceeds  o("  that  sale? 

Answer.  1  do  not  think  he  has,  but  I  do  not  know. 


TESTIMONY.  183 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  extent  of  the  interest  Mr.  Kichard  Schell 
had  in  it  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Were  you  in  Washington  when  the  deed  was  delivered 
to  the  government  on  behalf  of  Irving,  and  the  draft  drawn  and  de- 
livered? 

Answer.  I  think  I  was  here  at  that  time. 

Question.  Were  you  at  the  Attorney  General's  office  at  that  time 
in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  was  the  time  I  was  there. 

Question.  Were  you  at  the  War  Department  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  I  think  I  was  at  the  War  Department  once  or  twice  at 
that  time. 

Question.  Did  you  assist  to  consummate  the  matter? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  assisted. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  received  the  draft? 

Answer  I  was  not  certain  who  did  ;  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  Who  were  here  from  New  York  at  that  time? 

Answer.  I  think  William  C.  Wetmore  was  here. 

Question.  Was  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  here  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  was.  I  think  Irving  was  here 
himself. 

Question.  Was  Richard  Schell  here? 

Answer.  He  was  not. 

Question.  He  had  been  here  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  he  not  at  that  time  request  you  to  attend  to  it  here, 
telling  you  he  had  been  on  about  it  himself? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  he  might  have  been  here,  but  I  am  not  aware  of  it. 

Question.  Did  you  know  of  any  party  having  an  interest  in  this 
transaction  except  Mr.  Irving  ? 

Answer.  Except  so  far  as  Mr.  Schell  is  interested. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Irving  has  been  paid  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  he  has,  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Is  General  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  a  man  of  property? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Question.  Did  Richard  Schell  ever  state  to  you  what  he  had  done 
with  the  proceeds  of  the  sale. 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  did.  I  think  he  said  to  me  once  that  he 
had  paid  Mr.  Irving  up,  or  partly  up.  I  think  he  said  he  had  paid 
him  up.    I  do  not  remember,  in  fact  I  cannot  tell. 

Question.   What  is  the  business  of  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  He  is  an  extensive  broker. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Florence.)     Has  he  large  money  transactions? 

Answer.  Very  large,  indeed. 

Question.  Has  he  been  in  the  habit  of  loaning  money  for  any  pur- 
pose ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  if  he  can  get  paid  for  it. 

(Question.  During  the  month  of  July  were  his  transactions  to  your 
knowledge  pretty  extensive  ? 


184  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Is  he  in  tlie  habit  of  loaning  large  amounts? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  You  have  stated  you  never  saw  the 
Wilkins'  Point  property,  and  do  not  know  of  your  own  knowledge 
anything  of  its  value  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  will  say  from  what  information  I  have  re- 
ceived, that  I  believe  the  government  has  bought  it  for  $50,000  less 
than  what  it  is  worth. 

Monday,  April  12,  1858. 

General  Joseph  G.  Totten^  sworn : 

Question.  What  is  your  position  in  the  army? 

Answer.  I  am  a  colonel  of  engineers  and  a  brevet  brigadier 
general. 

Question.  When  was  your  attention  first  called  to  the  appropri- 
ation made  for  the  purchase  of  property  for  a  fortification  opposite 
Fort  Schuyler  ? 

Answer.  On  the  passage  of  the  law.  We  kept  a  close  watch,  being 
much  interested  in  it. 

Question.   When  and  by  whom  was  that  work  recommended  ? 

Answer.  The  work  was  recommended  in  1820  by  the  first  board  of 
engineers.  Understanding  that  the  matter  might  be  of  some  interest 
to  the  committee,  I  brought  with  me  a  report  made  in  1820  in  refer- 
ence to  the  necessity  of  fortifying  Wilkins'  Point  and  Throg's  Point, 
which,  you  know,  are  opposite  each  other? 

Question.  Was  any  specific  recommendation  made  during  the  ses- 
sion of  Congress  in  which  the  appropriation  passed  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  The  appropriation  was  recommended  with  a 
great  deal  of  emphasis  several  times. 

Question.  Was  it  during  that  sesion? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was. 

Question.  When  did  you  commence  negotiating  for  the  purchase  of 
the  property  ? 

Answer.  Within  a  few  days  after  the  passage  of  the  act. 

Question.  With  whom  did  you  commence  negotiating? 

Answer.  Major  Barnard,  the  chief  engineer  of  New  York  harbor, 
instructed  by  the  engineer  department  to  make  investigations  as  to 
the  value  of  the  land,  the  ownership,  &c.,  in  that  point  and  other 
points  in  tlie  neighborhood.  I  will  say,  incidentally,  that  the  law, 
under  the  recommendation  of  the  engineer  department,  appropriated 
not  for  Wilkins'  Point  expressly,  but  a  point  opposite  Throg's  Point, 
in  order  not  to  indicate  the  precise  spot.  There  was  really,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  engineer  department,  some  latitude  allowable  ;  that  is 
to  say,  if  the  value  of  the  proi)erty  was  very  high  and  exorbitant  on 
Wilkins'  Point,  it  was  the  o})inion  of  the  engineer  department,  that 
we  could  take  some  other  ])oint,  if  it  could  be  had  at  a  more  reason- 
able price.  Major  Barnard  was  instructed  to  make  investigations, 
which  he  did.  The  correspondence  between  him  and  the  department 
(a  copy  of  which  1  have  been  told  has  been  furnished  the  committee) 


TESTIMONY.  185 

will  give  his  reports  on  the  subject,  and  all  the  instructions  of  the  de- 
partment to  him. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  what  various  pieces  of  property  were 
submitted  for  sale  to  the  government  opposite  Fort  Schuyler? 

Answer.  Under  those  instructions  Major  Barnard  obtained  the 
prices  from  several  of  the  owners  opposite. 

Question.  Was  your  attention  called  to  Cryder's  Point? 

Answer.  I  think  so.  I  am  not  certain  about  the  names  of  the 
places  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  that  was  one  of  the  names  ? 

Question.  Do  you  remember  at  what  price  that  property  was  offered? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Under  whose  direction  was  the  act  of  condemnation  ob- 
tained? 

Answer.  By  the  direction  of  the  engineer  department. 

Question.  Did  you  approve  of  the  purchase  of  the  property  at  Wil- 
kins'  Point  from  Mr.  Irving  ? 

Answer.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Question.  Has  it  not  been  customary  for  your  department  to  nego- 
tiate and  close  the  purchase  of  land  for  fortification  purposes  ? 

Answer.  It  has  always  been  so,  with  the  understanding  that  we 
act  in  the  name  of  the  War  Department.  The  agency  has  always 
been  with  the  engineer  bureau  since  I  have  been  in  it. 

Question.  It  seems  you  commenced  negotiations  through  Major  Bar- 
nard, and  they  were  carried  on  down  to  a  certain  time. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  State  by  whom  they  were  taken  from  under  your  control, 
and  the  reason  for  it. 

Answer.  I  supposed  the  negotiations  to  be  in  charge  of  the  engineer 
department,  subject,  as  I  have  just  said,  to  the  approval  of  the  Secretary 
of  War  during  the  whole  of  the  early  steps.  Of  course,  I  kept  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  informed,  from  time  to  time,  of  the  subject,  by  communi- 
cating to  him  the  letters  of  Major  Barnard.  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  is  within  the  scope  of  your  inquiry  for  me  to  say  anything  about 
conversations  I  had  with  the  Secretary. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  we  desire. 

Witness.  I  had  conversation  with  the  Secretary  of  War  on  the  sub- 
ject, especially  as  to  whether  we  should  resort  to  a  jury  or  not.  He 
was  doubtful,  but  was  not  satisfied  with  the  high  terms  demanded. 
My  own  opinion  was  that  we  ought  to  have  a  jury,  in  order  to  cover 
any  price  we  ultimately  might  have  to  give,  and  the  correspondence 
shows  that.  I  endeavor  to  communicate  nothing  but  what  the  corre- 
spondence will  show. 

^  Question.  Did  you  not  express  to  the  Secretary  in  your  coversa- 
tion  with  him  a  desire  to  have  a  jury  under  that  act  to  condemn  the 
property  ? 

Answer.  Yes  sir,  I  did  ;  but  I  do  not  remember  whether  on  more 
than  one  occasion. 

Question.  Did  you  not  consider  the  price  which  was  asked  for  this 
Wilkins'  Point  very  exorbitant  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  the  price  which  was  paid  very  exorbitant? 


186  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  ouglit  to  say,  in  answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  signing, 
that  I  knew  nothing  of  the  land  from  personal  examination  of  it,  but 
seemed  to  me  to  be  an  exorbitant  price  which  was  demanded  by  the 
owner,  Mr.  Weissman,  and  it  was  on  that  ground  that  I  was  disposed 
to  have  a  jury,  in  order,  if  we  were  obliged  to  pay  a  high  price,  we 
might  go  before  the  country  with  the  justification  of  the  verdict  of  a 
jury. 

Question.  What  was  the  price  asked  by  Weissman? 

Answer.  According  to  my  recollection,  Mr.  Weissman  demanded 
$1,000  an  acre  and  $15,000  for  his  improvements  ;  that  is  shown  in  a 
letter  of  Major  Barnard's.  I  considered  that  a  high  price,  and 
thought  a  jury  would  give  it  for  less  ;  but  that  if  they  gave  as  much, 
we  should  be  justified  in  paying  it  under  their  award. 

Question.  Did  you  make  that  statement  early  to  the  Secretary  of 
War? 

Answer.  That  must  have  been  the  tenor  of  our  conversation,  but  I 
do  not  remember. 

Question.  Did  you  call  the  attention  of  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the 
act  of  condemnation  before  the  purchase  was  agreed  to? 

Witness.  Do  you  mean  whether  the  Secretary  knew,  from  my  con- 
versation to  him,  that  there  was  such  an  act? 

Mr.  Haskin.  I  do. 

Witness.  He  must  have  known  it ;  that  was  the  course  of  business. 
He  must  have  understood,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  application  had 
been  made  and  that  it  had  been  granted. 

Question.  Has  it  been  the  custom  of  the  War  Department  to  pay 
more  than  the  specific  appropriation  for  property  during  your  con- 
nexion with  it  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  any  such  a  case ;  if  there  has  been, 
it  has  not  been  within  my  experience. 

Question.  Do  you  say  that  the  conclusion  of  the  negotiation  for  the 
purchase  of  this  property  was  taken  from  your  department  and  taken 
charge  of  by  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  say  that ;  but  that  while  the  matter  was  in  hand 
I  received  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  War  to  pay  a  certain 
price  to  Mr.  Irving  for  that  land. 

Question.  Those  were  written  instructions? 

Answer.  They  were  instructions  endorsed  upon  the  proposition  of 
Mr.  Irving.  The  first  I  saw  of  Mr.  Irving's  proposition  was  the  paper 
containing  his  proposition,  with  the  endorsement  of  the  Secratary  of 
War  upon  it,  of  which  you  have  a  copy. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  any  interview  with  Mr.  Irving  at  the  War 
Department  ? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  him  to  know  him. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in  rehation  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Latham  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  it  taken  from  your  department  by  the  War  Depart- 
ment ? 

Answer.  It  was  taken  from  our  bureau  by  tlie  War  Department. 


TESTIMONY.  187 

Our's  is  a  "bureau,  and  we  are  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of 
War  in  all  things  ;  everything  we  do  is  in  the  nature  of  an  agency. 

Question.  And  did  you  not  consider  it  out  of  the  ordinary  sphere  of 
the  acts  of  the  War  Department  to  take  the  management  of  this 
business  from  you  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  never  known  precisely  such  a  step  ;  hut,  of 
course,  there  was  nothing  to  touch  the  amour  propre  of  the  engineer 
department. 

Question.  You  were  in  the  habit  of  executing  such  business,  but 
you  did  not  regard  the  intervention  of  the  Secretary  as  an  improper 
interference  with  the  especial  duties  of  your  bureau  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  That  duty  is  conferred  upon  our  bureau  merely 
as  a  subordinate  branch  of  the  War  Department,  and  for  the  assist- 
ance of  the  War  Department. 

Question.  You  had  advised,  up  to  the  moment  of  this  act  of  the 
Secretary,  that  the  property  should  be  submitted  to  a  jury  for  con- 
demnation ? 

Answer.  The  ordinary  course  of  proceeding  would  be  this  :  The 
engineer  department  would  feel  itself  bound  to  take  all  the  prelimi- 
nary steps,  and  inform  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  result  whenever  it 
was  of  sufficient  significance  to  require  it.  Where  particular  steps 
were  necessary  to  be  taken,  we  would  take  them  under  the  warrant  and 
by  the  authority  of  the  Secretary.  This  negotiation  was  proceeding  as 
a  mere  matter  of  business,  and  would  have  been  consummated  by  a  jury 
condemning  it,  if  my  course  had  been  satisfactory  to  the  Secretary  ; 
but  the  Secretary  had  reasons  to  prefer  a  direct  purchase,  and  the 
notice  we  got  of  that  purchase  came  in  the  way  I  have  mentioaed. 

Question.  If  you  were  understood  correctly^  you  stated  that  before 
this  case  it  had  been  unusual  for  the  Secretary  to  take  charge  of  a  pur- 
chase of  this  kind,  and  that  it  had  been  the  custom  to  leave  it  to  the 
engineer  bureau  ? 

Answer.  I  believe,  without  exception,  since  I  have  been  in  the 
engineer  department,  the  purchase  of  land,  under  such  circumstances, 
has  always  been  made  entirely  through  the  agency  of  the  engineer 
department. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  the  engineer 
department  ? 

Answer.  Twenty  years. 

Question.  Why  was  it  that  the  negotiations  which  were  going  on 
between  Major  Barnard  and  Mr.  Weissman  for  the  purchase  of  this 
property  were  interrupted  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  able  to  say.  I  understood  the  case  up  to  the 
period  of  the  acceptance  of  Mr.  Irving' s  offer  ;  beyond  that  I  know 
nothing,  except  that  we  consummated  the  purchase  by  paying  the 
money. 

Question.  By  the  directions  of  the  Secretary  of  War? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  took  all  the  steps  necessary  to  secure  the 
United  States. 

Question.  Down  to  the  time  when  the  Secretary  accepted  the  offer 
of  Irving  did  you  understand  that  this  property  could  be  had  for 
§1,000  an  acre,  and  $15^000  for  the  improvements? 


188  TESTIMONY, 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Major  Barnard  had  entered  into  these  preliminary  regu- 
lations by  your  direction  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  make  any  report  to  you  of  the  terms  and  conditions  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  not  employ  an  agent,  Mr.  Van  Nostrand,  to  nego- 
tiate with  Mr.  Weissman? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Was  it  your  impression  that  the  property  could  be 
obtained  for  $100,000? 

Answer.  Major  Barnard  states  in  one  of  his  letters  that  he  thought 
it  might  be  obtained  for  that  amount. 

Question.  You  received  information  from  Major  Barnard,  that  he 
supposed  the  property  might  be  obtained  for  $100,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  the  Secretary  cognizant  of  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  (deed  from  Irving  to  U.  S.  shown  witness.) 

Question.  Is  that  not  the  writing  of  Governor  Floyd  endorsed  on  the 
back  of  the  deed  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  the  endorsement  is,  but  the  signature  is. 
I  think  the  endorsement  is  in  the  handwriting  of  his  first  clerk,  Mr. 
Drinkard. 

Friday,  April  23,  1858. 

Graham  Polley,  sworn  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  live? 

Answer.  In  the  eastern  district  of  Brooklyn. 

Question.  How  far  from  Wilkins'  Point  ? 
^  Answer.  About  eight  miles. 

Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  A  distiller. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  which  the 
government  purchased  in  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  gentleman  who  owned  it  in  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  him  at  my  place  two  or  three  times  ;  his  name 
is  Weissman  :  he  called  for  the  purpose  of  selling  the  ])roperty  to  me. 
I  think  this  was  two  years  ago  next  July  ;  he  proposed  to  sell  me  120 
acres. 

Question.  Wliat  did  he  propose  to  sell  them  for? 

Answer.  His  asking  price  was  $65,000 — he  was  anxious  to  sell. 

Question.  What  was  your  opinion  of  the  value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  had  a  friend  who  lived  within  half  a  mileoftliis  property, 
and  who  wished  me  to  buy  it.  He  thought  I  couUl  buy  it  for  $45,000, 
but  I  woukl  have  been  willing  to  have  given  $05,000  for  a  country 
seat.  Weissman  was  very  anxious  to  sell.  I  understood  from  ray  friend 
that  he  was  in  a  very  tight  place,  and  I  heard  that  the  property  had 
been  in  the  market  some  time. 

By  Mr.  Florence.  You  understood  who  was  in  a  tight  place? 

Answer.  Mr.  Weissman. 


TESTIMONY.  189 

Question.     And  that  was  the  reason  he  wanted  to  sell  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  a  friend  of  mine  who  lived  near  him  brought 
him  down  to  me. 

By  Mr.  Hall.  You  think  this  was  two  years  ago? 

Answer.  It  was  either  two  or  three  years  ago.  A  little  party  of  my 
friends  went  up  with  me  on  a  steamboat  I  owned,  to  view  the  place, 
and  they  agreed  with  me  that  it  was  two  years  ago  ;  I  was  not  in  the 
place  but  went  around  it. 

QuestioD.  Did  Weissman  come  to  you  more  than  once  in  relation  to 
the  sale  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  twice  certain,  and  perhaps  three  times. 

Question.  You  think  it  was  two  years  ago  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  two  years  next  July. 

Question.  Would  you  have  considered  it  cheap  at  $65,000  ? 

Answer.  A  person  must  have  wanted  it  very  bad  to  have  paid  that 
for  it.  They  told  me  at  the  time  that  the  government  wanted  to  buy- 
ten  acres  of  it,  and  that  I  might  get  a  good  round  price  for  it. 

Question.  There  were  120  acres  in  all  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  did  the  government  want  it  for  ? 

Answer.  Fortification  purposes. 

April  24,  1858. 

Georoe  Irving,  sworn  :    ' 

Question.  Where  do  you  live? 

Answer.   On  Long  Island. 

Question.  Where  abouts  on  Long  Island? 

Answer.  For  the  last  two  mon  ths  I  have  resided  at  South  Oyster  Bay. 

Question.  Where  did  you  reside  in  March  1857  ? 

Answer.  On  Little  Neck  Bay,  Long  Island. 

Question.  When  did  you  purchase  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  About  April  1,  1857. 

Question.  From  whom? 

Answer.  From  the  trustee  of  Mrs.  Weissman. 

Question.  With  whom  did  you  negotiate  the  purchase  ? 

Answer.   Mr.  Weissman. 

Question.  Frederick  Weissman  ? 

Answer.  Frederick. 

Question.  When  did  you  commence  the  negotiations  with  him  ? 

Answer.  In  the  latter  part  of  March. 

Question.  Was  the  understanding  verbal  or  in  writing  ? 

Answer.  In  writing. 

Question.  Had  you,  before  you  commenced  this  negotiation,  been 
informed  of  the  appropriation  made  by  Congress  for  its  purchase  ? 

Answer.  I  saw  it  in  the  papers. 

Question.  Did  you  commence  the  negotiations  with  the  view  of 
selling  the  property  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  you  commenced  the  negotiation,  had  you  knowledge 


190  TESTIMONY. 

that  the  government,  through  any  of  its  agents,  had  commenced  the 
negotiations  for  the  purchase  ? 

Answer,  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  had  no  knowledge ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  not  know  that  Major  Barnard  or  Mr.  Yan  Nostrand 
had  been  negotiating  the  purchase? 

Answer.  The  day  I  went  to  see  Mr.  Weissman,  he  told  me  that 
Major  Barnard  had  been  there  the  day  before  looking  at  the  land,  but 
that  he  had  not  decided  that  he  wanted  it,  and  that  he  had  been  over 
to  Cryder's  Point  that  day,  and  had  given  out  that  he  thought  it  would 
suit  better  than  Weissman' s. 

Question.  How  much  did  you  pay  for  the  property  ? 

Answer.  $130,000. 

Question.  Please  state  the  mode  of  payment? 

Answer.  I  paid  $10,000  on  the  15th  of  April,  and  $20,000  in  the 
beginning  of  July,  and  the  balance  in  a  mortgage  for  $85,000. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  the  $10,000  in  cash  on  the  15th  April? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I  paid  $1,000  in  cash,  and  $9,000  in  a  check. 

Question.  When  was  that  check  payable? 

Answer.  Ten  days  afterwards. 

Question.  Are  you  not  mistaken?  Was  not  the  check  for  $9,000 
payable  on  the  28th  of  April  ? 

Answer.  It  may  have  been,  and  probably  was  ;  I  thought  it  was 
payable  ten  days  afterwards. 

Question.  On  what  bank  was  the  check  given? 

Answer.  On  the  North  Paver  Bank. 

Question.  At  the  time  you  gave  that  check  on  the  15th  of  April, 
had  you  $9,000  in  the  North  River  Bank? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  When  was  the  $9,000  deposited? 

Answer.  It  was  not  my  own  check. 

Question.  Whose  check  was  it? 

Answer.  It  was  the  check  of  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  drawn  to  my 
order. 

Question.  Had  he  at  the  time  that  check  was  drawn  on  the  15th  of 
April,  $9,000  in  the  North  River  Bank? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  The  check  for  $9,000  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  gave,  payable 
to  your  order? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  induced  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  to  give  that 
check  ? 

Answer.  It  was  a  friendly  act  on  his  part. 

Question.  Did  he  at  the  time  he  loaned  you  this  money,  know  that 
it  was  ibr  the  purpose  of  making  this  payment  on  the  Wilkins'  Point 
property  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir,  I  believe  he  did. 

Question.  Had  he  any  interest  with  you  in  the  purchase? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  bought  it  on  my  own  responsibility. 

(Question.  Had  he  any  interest  in  it,  directly  or  indirectly? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 


TESTIMONY.  191 

Question.  When  did  you  receive  the  deed  for  that  property  ? 

Answer.  In  the  heginning  of  July. 

Question.  What  time  in  July? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  on  the  third. 

Question.  You  are  not  certain  about  that? 

Answer.  It  was  between  the  first  and  fourth,  either  on  the  second 
or  third. 

Question.  Did  you  receive  the  deed  before  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  re- 
turned from  Washington? 

Answer.  I  received  it  before  he  left  for  Washington. 

Question.   When  did  you  pay  the  $30,000? 

Answer.  I  paid  part  of  it  when  I  received  the  deed. 

Question.  How  much? 

Answer.  $20,000. 

Question.  Not  in  addition  to  the  $10,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  did  you  pay  the  balance? 

Answer.  On  the  6th  or  7th  of  July,  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  paid 
this  for  me,  and  he  attended  to  the  business. 

Question.  Did  he  pay  the  $20,000  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  also  the  balance,  making  up  the  $35,000  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  was  to  pay  $45,000,  and  I  paid  the  $10,000 
in  April,  and  left  a  balance  of  $35,000  to  be  paid. 

Question.  And  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  paid  this  money  for  you? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  As  to  the  time  when  it  was  paid,  have  you  any  certain 
knowledge  whether  it  was  paid  on  the  6th  or  the  7th  ? 

Answer.  It  was  paid  through  him. 

Question.  And  whenever  he  paid  it  was  the  time? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.     The  money  was  handed  to  him  and  he  paid  it. 

Question.  Where  did  he  receive  the  money  from? 

Answer.  From  Mr.  Schell. 

Question.  How  much? 

Answer.  $35,000.  ^ 

Question.  When  did  he  receive  that? 

Answer.  He  received  it  at  different  times  between  the  first  and 
eighth  of  July  ;  he  paid  $20,000  somewhere  about  the  second  or  third. 

Question.     Wm.  C.  Wetmore  paid  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  He  received  it  from  Mr.  Schell  at  that  time,  so 
I  understand. 

Question.  Who  did  you  understand  that  from  ? 

Answer.  From  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore.  He  told  me  that  he  received 
this  money  from  Mr.  Schell  and  paid  it.  I  was  not  present  at  the  time 
and  did  not  see  it,  but  I  take  his  word  that  he  received  it  and  paid  it. 

Question.  Who  and  what  induced  Mr.  Schell  to  advance  this  money? 

Answer.  Mr.  Schell  is  a  broker  who  loans  money,  and  I  got  Mr. 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore  to  go  to  him  and  see  if  he  would  loan  me 
that  amount  of  money ;  that  was  in  April  after  I  had  made  the  pur- 
chase of  the  place. 

Question.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Schell  ? 


192  TESTIMONY, 

Answer.     No,  sir  ;  I  was  not  acquainted  with  Mr.  Schell. 

Question.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  negotiated  the  loan? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   On  what  terms  was  the  loan  negotiated? 

Answer.  At  the  time  I  did  not  make  any  positive  arrangement  with 
him  ;  afterwards  I  paid  him  $5,000  for  the  loan. 

Question.  When  did  you  pay  him  $5,000? 

Answer.  In  July. 

Question.  After  the  whole  thing  was  consummated  and  the  pro- 
perty sold  to  the  government? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  where  Mr.  Schell  ohtained  this  money  from? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  seen  Schell  in  relation  to  this  transaction, 
until  you  paid  him  the  $5,000. 

Answer.  Oh,  yes  ;  repeatedly  during  the  summer. 

Question,  What  time  in  the  summer? 

Answer.  In  the  middle  or  latter  part  of  April  my  acquaintance 
first  began  with  him. 

Question.  Who  introduced  you  to  him? 

Answer.  I  was  in  Prosper  M.  Wetmore' s  office,  and  Mr.  Schell 
came  in  ;  there  was  nobody  in  the  office  at  the  time  ;  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  spoke  to  me  first,  or  I  to  him  ;  I  knew  him  by  sight, 
having  previously  seen  him  passing  along. 

Question.  Who  negotiated  the  sale  of  the  property  to  the  govern- 
ment ? 

Answer.  I  wrote  direct. 

Question.  To  whom  ? 

Answer.  Gov.  Floyd. 

Question.  When? 

Answer.  In  the  beginning  of  April. 

Question.  Did  you  call  on  Floyd  in  person  about  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  never  seen  Floyd. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Latham? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  seen  him,  but  not  in  reference  to  this 
purchase  ;  I  think  I  saw  him  the  month  after  I  made  the  purchase  of 
Wilkins'  Neck. 

Question.  That  was  about  the  first  of  March  ? 

Answer.  I  made  the  purchase  about  the  first  of  April  and  met  him 
about  the  first  of  May. 

Question.  Wliere  did  you  see  him? 

Answer.  I  think  I  first  saw  Mr.  Latham  in  Mr.  A.  W.  Thompson'.s 
office. 

Question.  Who  introduced  you  to  Mr.  Latham  ? 

Answer.   I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Thompson  did,  or  who  did. 

Question.  Did  you  talk  to  him  about  the  purchase  of  this  property 
by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect ;  it  is  very  likely  I  did. 


i 


TESTIMONY.  193 

Question.  Did  you  see  Latham  subsequently  at  Ricliard  Schell's 
office? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  I  did. 

Question.  And  converse  with  him  on  the  subject  of  the  purchase  of 
this  property  by  the  government? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think,  when  I  conversed  with  Latham,  the  ne- 
gotialions  were  completed. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  assist  in  the  negotiation 
for  the  purchase  or  sale  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.   He  assisted  me  with  his  advice. 

Question.  Did  he,  to  your  knowled^je,  write  to  Latham,  Governor 
Floyd,  or  any   one  connected   with  the  War  Department,  about  it? 

Answer.   Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  inform  you  that  he  had  written  or  cor- 
res])onded  with  them  on  the  subject? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Did  Schell  assist  in  the  negotiation? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  You  say  you  borrowed  the  money  from  Schell  with  which 
you  paid  for  the  property  ;  did  you  give  him  any  security  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  If  I  had  given  him  security  I  should  not  have 
given  him  so  much  bonus  for  his  money. 

Question.  The  neo^otiations  between  Schell  and. yourself  were,  if  I 
have  understood  you  correctly,  consummated  by  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  first  spoke  to  him  about  it  and 
afterwards  I  spoke  to  him. 

Question.  When  did  you  first  see  Schell  in  relation  to  this  nego- 
tiation ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  recollect  the  day,  but  it  was  in  the  month  of 
April. 

Question.  What  passed  between  Schell  and  you  at  that  time? 

Answer.  I  really  cannot  recollect,  but  it  was  nothing  important — a 
general  conversation  about  the  matter. 

Question    What  was  the  conversation  about? 

Answer.  It  was  about  my  purchase  and  the  amount  of  money  I 
would  want. 

Question.  Did  you  state  the  amount  of  money  you  would  need? 

Answer.  I  told  him  what  my  arrangement  was  with  Wissman,  that 
I  was  to  pay  him  $10,000  down  and  the  balance  on  or  before  the  10th 
of  July. 

Question.  This  was  in  April? 

Answer.  It  was  about  the  middle  of  April. 

Question.  After  the  negotiations  were  completed  between  you  and 
W^issman  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  State  what  occurred  at  your  first  interview  with  Schell, 
and  what  agreement  you  made  with  him? 

Answer.  Mr.  Schell  agreed  to  advance  the  amount  of  money  neces- 
sary. The  principal  part  of  the  negotiation  was  conducted  by  Prosper 
M.  Wetmore,  and  he  had  arranged  this  with  Schell  beforehand.     Af- 

H.  Ptep.  Com.  549 13 


194  TESTiMOisnr. 

terwards  I  met  ScKell  and  had  a  general  conversation  with  him  on  the 
subject. 

Question.  What  was  the  agreement  between  Schell  and  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore,  acting  for  you,  or  what  agreement  had  you  in  person  with 
Schell  in  relation  to  the  advance  of  this  money? 

Answer.  He  agreed  to  advance  it. 

Question.  Did  he  not  ask  any  security  for  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  agreed  previously  with  Mr.  Wetmore  to  ad- 
vance the  money. 

Qaestion.  For  you? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  say  you  do  not  know  where  Schell  obtained  the 
money  from  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  that  Schell  was  in  the  habit  of  negotiating 
for  large  sums  of  money,  and  Wetmore  went  to  him. 

Question.  Had  you  this  conversation  with  Schell  previous  to  the 
purchase  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  The  loan  was  arranged  by  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  who 
conferred  with  Schell? 

Answer.  That  was  after  I  had  entered  into  the  agreement  to  pur- 
chase. 

Question.  Thea  your  conversations  were  originally  with  Mr.  Pros- 
per M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  suggest  to  you  that  he  knew  a  person  from  whom 
he  could  obtain  the  money  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  he  did. 

Question.  You  paid  $1,000  in  cash  and  the  remaining  $9,000  with  a 
check  of  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore's? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  reason  to  suppose  at  the  time  Wetmore  gave  his 
check  for  $9,000  that  he  had  that  amount  of  money  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  know  anything  about  his  private  affairs? 

Question.  Had  you  any  idea  that  he  was  in  condition  to  advance 
$9,000? 

Answer.  It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  say. 

Question.  Is  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  a  wealthy  man? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  him.  I  have  been  acquainted 
with  him  for  years,  but  he  has  never  said  anything  to  me  about  his 
money  affairs. 

Question.  Was  this  check  for  $9,000  a  certified  check  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Some  people  say  that  Wetmore  is  wealthy  and 
some  say  he  is  not. 

Question.  You  say  you  paid  down  $1,000  when  you  consummated  the 
bargain  to  purchase  with  Wissman  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  the  $1,000  your  money? 

Answer.  I  received  it  from  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  give  you  to  understand,  in 
the  preliminary  conversations  you  had  with  him,  that  the  negotiations 


TESTIMONY.  195 

for  the  purchase  of  the  property  were  completed,  and  that  he  could 
furnish  the  money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  cannot  say  he  did.  I  talked  with  him  about 
the  purchase  of  the  property.     I  thought  it  was  a  good  purchase. 

Question.  If  the  government  would  take  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.     I  thought  it  was  a  good  purchase  any  how. 

Question.  Did  you  converse  with  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  pre* 
vious  to  these  negotiations  about  the  purchase  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  took  his  advice  about  it  as  I  would  take  the 
advice  of  a  friend. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  converse  with  him  about  the  way  you  should 
pay  the  money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  suggest  to  you  that  he  would  render  you  the 
friendly  office  of  furnishing  the  money  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  request  him  to  furnish  you  with  the  money  pre- 
vious to  the  purchase? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  talked  with  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  about  mak- 
ing the  purchase,  and  remarked  that  the  only  fear  I  had  was  that  I  would 
not  be  able  to  meet  the  payments  ;  and  he  then  said  that  if  I  conclu- 
ded to  purchase  he  would  assist  me  as  far  as  he  could  to  make  them. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  any  commission? 

Answer.  No,  sir ;  none  whatever.  I  have  been  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  Wetmore  for  a  number  of  years. 

Question.  When  did  you  receive  the  deed  for  this  property  ? 

Answer.  In  July. 

Question.  When  did  you  deliver  it  to  the  government? 

Answer.  In  July. 

Question.  How  many  days  elapsed  between  the  time  you  received 
the  deed  and  the  time  vou  passed  it  to  the  government ;  or  was  that 
all  done  through  Mr.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  It  was  all  done  through  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore.  I  got 
him  to  come  on  here  and  attend  to  the  business,  and  I  concluded  I 
would  not  come  on  at  all ;  but  afterwards  I  thought  they  might  want 
me  here  to  give  some  receipt,  and  I  came  on  here  and  merely  re- 
mained on  hand. 

Question.  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  transacted  all  the  business 
with  the  department  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  see  Mr.  Floyd  about  it? 

Answer.  I  believe  he  did.  I  never  conversed  with  Mr.  Floyd  in 
my  life. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  day  the  War  Department  accepted 
your  proposition  to  sell  this  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  do  not.  I  had  a  certified  copy  of  the  acceptance 
(of  which  you  have  probably  the  original)  sent  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  dated  the  28th  of  April. 

Witness.  I  knew  it  was  some  time  in  April. 

Question.  Was  the  check  for  $9,000  paid  before  you  had  received 


196  TESTIMONY. 

notice  from  the  department  that  your  proposition  to  sell  had  been 
accepted  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  ;  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  attended  to  that. 

Question.  Did  he  attend  to  the  payment  of  Prosper  M.  Wetmore's 
check  for  $9,000.  Was  that  check  paid  before  you  had  knowledge, 
that  the  government  had  accepted  your  proposition  ?^ 

Answer.  That  check  was  never  paid. 

Question.  The  check  of  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  for  |9,000? 

Answer.  It  was  never  paid  ;  another  check  was  given  in  its  place, 
at  least,  so  I  understand. 

Question.  Whose  check  was  given  for  it? 

Answer.  I  expect  it  was  Mr.  Richard  Schell's  ;  I  do  not  know.  Mr. 
William  C.  Wetmore  substituted  Schell's  check  for  that  of  Prosper 
M.  Wetmore,  I  think. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  In  the  latter  part  of  April. 

Question.  When  was  it  paid? 

Answer.  It  was  paid  on  the  same  day  that  the  other  check  matured. 

Question.   And  it  was  Mr.  Richard  JScheirs  check? 

Answer.  I  presume  it  was. 

Question.  To  whose  order  was  it  made  payable? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know;  I  never  saw  the  check. 

By  Mr.  Florence.  It  may  not  have  been  a  check  at  all,  then  ;  it  may 
have  been  money. 

Witness.  I  do  not  know  in  w^hat  manner  the  payment  was  made, 
Mr.  William  C.  W^etmore  attended  to  it,  and  it  may  have  been  his 
check  ior  all  I  know. 

By  the  Chairman.  There  was  $115,000  paid  by  the  government  for 
the  property  ? 

Answer.  Ye^,  sir. 

Question.  Who  received  that  money  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  William  C.  Wetmore  received  it. 

Question.  Did  he  receive  it  here? 

Answer.  I  believe  my  arrangement  with  him  was  that  he  should 
come  on  here  and  attend  to  the  business  and  receive  the  draft  ;  and  I 
authorized  him  to  pay  that  draft  over.  The  fact  was  to  hold  the 
draft,  and  pay  Mr.  liichard  Schell  his  advances  out  of  it  and  his  com- 
mission. 

Question.  Was  William  C.  Wetmore  your  lawyer? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Had  he  been  your  lawyer  before  in  any  other  transac- 
tion ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Who  recommended  him,  or  introduced  him  to  you? 

Answer.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  spoke  to  me  about  him,  but  1  do  not 
know  wlio  introduced  me  to  him. 

Question.  Is  he  a  relative  of  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.   He  is  his  cousin. 

Question.  The  $115,000  was  received  in  a  draft  by  William  C. 
Wetmore  ? 

Answer.  1  believe  so. 


TESTIMONY.  197 

Question.  To  whom  was  it  made  payable? 

Answer.  To  ray  order. 

Question.  Where  did  you  receive  the  draft? 

Answer.  In  New  York,  from  Lieutenant  Gillmore. 

Question.  Who  was  with  you  at  the  time  you  received  it  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Richard  Schell.  At  that  time  he  had  hirge  engage- 
ments maturing,  and  was  very  anxious  to  get  his  money  back  again  ; 
he  wanted  to  go  up  to  the  office  to  see  if  the  draft  was  paid,  and  when 
I  got  up  to  the  office,  instead  of  paying  the  draft  to  William  0.  Wet- 
more,  and  allowing  him  to  pay  it,  I  endorsed  the  draft  over  direct  to 
Mr.  Schell,  and  afterwards  he  settled  with  Wetmore. 

Question.  Did  you  go  to  Gillmore's  office  with  Schell? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  endorse  the  draft  over  to  Schell  in  G-illmore's 
office  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Where  did  you  endorse  it  over  to  him  ? 

Answer.  After  we  left  Gillmore's  office  Mr.  Schell  wanted  to  go 
down  to  Wall  street,  and  I  wanted  to  go  to  another  part  of  the  city, 
and  so  we  stepped  into  a  store  and  I  there  endorsed  the  draft  over  to 
him. 

Question.  After  ybu  left  Gillmore's  office  you  did  this? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  you  received  this  draft  from  Mr.  Gillmore  did  you 
hand  it  over  to  Schell,  in  order  that  he  might  take  out  the  amount  he 
had  advanced,  and  also  use  the  balance  to  meet  the  amounts  falling 
due  he  had  spoken  of? 

Answer.  He  told  me  he  had  some  engagements  coming  due. 

Question.  Did  you  not  hand  the  draft  over  to  him  immediately 
after  you  left  Gillmore's  office  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  day  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  about  the  8th  of  July.  It  was  the  same 
morning  I  returned  from  Washington. 

Question.  What  did  Schell  do  with  the  draft  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.    I  suppose  he  deposited  it  in  his  bank. 

Question.  You  received  the  draft  in  the  morning  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  endorsed  it  over  to  Schell  in  the  morning  of  the 
same  day  you  received  it  fr6m  Gillmore  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  became  of  that  $115,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  what  became  of  the  money. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  what  became  of  the  money? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  know  what  Schell  did  with  it. 

Question.   It  was  your  draft  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Payable  to  your  order  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ;  but  when  i  endorsed  it  over  to  him  it  was  his  draft. 

Question.  Was  it  his  money? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 


198  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  What  became  of  the  money  Schell  received  on  that  draft  ? 

Answer.  After  deducting  his  advances  to  me,  which  were  paid  out 
by  him,  amounting  to  $45,700,  and  my  lawyer's  fiee,  which  he  paid, 
he  took  out  his  commission,  $5,000,  and  then  he  advanced  me  different 
sums  of  money. 

Question.  How  much  did  he  pay  you? 

Answer.  About  $12,000;  the  balance,  which  amounted  to  about 
$51,000,  I  authorized  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  to  settle  with  Schell,  and 
take  Sch ell's  note  at  twelve  months  for;  it  was  for  fifty-one  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  odd  dollars  that  I  authorized  Wetmore  to  take 
Schell's  note  for. 

Question.  Is  this  note  of  Richard  Schell  payable  to  you? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  payable  to  Mr.  Wetmore's 
order  or  mine  ;  I  have  never  seen  it. 

Question.  What  was  the  note  given  for  ? 

Answer.  For  the  balance  coming  to  me. 

Question.  You  have  never  seen  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  holds  it? 

Answer.  Mr.  Wm.  C.   Wetmore,  for  me. 

Question.  Does  he  hold  it  for  collection  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  any  sort  of  an  acknowledgment  from  Mr.  Wm. 
C.  Wetmore  that  he  holds  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  is  my  lawyer. 

Question.  What  is  the  understanding  between  Schell,  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore,  and  yourself,  in  regard  to  this  balance  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  understanding  in  reference  to  it. 

Question.  Is  it  to  be  paid  to  you  ? 

Answer.  I  understand  so. 

Question.   Understand  so  from  who? 

Answer.  From  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  ;  I  hold  him  accountable 
as  my  lawyer. 

Question.  Have  you  had  any  understanding  with  Schell  about  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  it  has  all  been  done  through  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wet- 
more, who  has  negotiated  all  my  business  matters. 

Question.  How  much  out  of  this  $115,000  paid  by  the  government 
have  you  realized  in  cash? 

Answer.  All  except  $51,000. 

Question.  Have  you  received  one  dollar  cash  for  your  own  use? 

Answer.  About  $12,000. 

Question.  You  received  that  much  actually  from  Schell? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   When  did  you  receive  it? 

Answer.   In  July. 

Question.   Alter  you  gave  him  the  draft  for  $115,000? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  tliere  no  understanding  existing  between  Schell  and 
you,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  and  you,  or  between  any  other  parties  and 
you,  tliat  this  $12,000  is  all  you  are  to  receive  out  of  tlie  transaction? 

Answer.  1  have  never  had  any  understanding  with  Schell  on  the 


TESTIMONY.  199 

subject.  I  put  it  in  Wetmore's  hands  to  close  up  the  transaction  for  me. 

Question.  You  say  you  received  |12,000  in  cash  out  of  $115,000. 
Kow,  had  you  any  understanding  with  Schell,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore, 
William  C.  Wetmore,  or  any  one  else,  that  that  was  all  you  were  to 
receive  out  of  this  transaction  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  There  is  no  such  understanding? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Is  there  any  understanding  in  relation  to  this  balance 
between  yourself  and  William  C.  Wetmore,  Richard  Schell,  or  Augustus 
Schell  ? 

Witness.  I  have  never  spoken  to  Augustus  Schell  on  the  subject? 

Question.   Or  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  or  any  one  else? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  that  there  is. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  whether  there  is  or  not.  What  is  the 
understanding  which  exists  in  relation  to  this  balance  ? 

Answer.  The  understanding  is  that  William  C.  Wetmore  is  to  hold 
that  note  for  collection  ;  so  he  told  me.  What  William  C.  Wetmore's 
understanding  with  Schell  is  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  that  note  now  in  the  hands  of  William 
C.  Wetmore  your  property  solely  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 
^    Question .  Woul  d  you  consider  it  as  a  part  of  the  assets  of  your  estate  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  should  think  it  was. 

Question.  Do  you  assert  that  it  is? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  because  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  never  entered  into 
particulars  with  me. 

Question.  That  note  is  payable  to  j'our  order  and  held  by  Irim  for 
collection  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  payable  to  my  order;  it  may  be 
payable  to  Mr.  Wetmore  I  told  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  to  settle  with 
Richard  Schell,  and  I  look  to  him  for  the  balance. 

Question.  Do  you  know  that  there  is  any  such  note  of  Richard 
Schell  in  existence? 

Answer.  Only  from  hearsay;  Wm.  0.  Wetmore  told  me  there  was 
such  a  note. 

Question.  Did  Richard  Schell  ever  acknowledge  to  you  there  was 
such  a  note  ? 

Answer.   I  never  have  spoken  to  him  about  it. 

Question.  Do  you  assert  any  claim  whatever  over  that  note? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  assert  a  claim  over  Wm.  C.  Wetmore  for  that 
amount  ? 

Question.  As  your  lawyer? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  told  to  settle  with  Mr.  Schell. 

Question.  Was  there  any  understanding  about  interest? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  1  think  I  told  William  C.  Wetmore  I  should  ex- 
pect interest. 

Question.  When? 

Answei.  I  cannot  recollect  the  day  ;  it  was  some  time  ago. 

Question.  Had  you  any  information  from  the  War  Department   o 


200  TESTIMONY. 

from  Richard  Schell,  before  the  $9,000  was  paid,  that  the  government 
would  take  the  property  ? 

Answer.   I  think  not. 

Question.   Are  you  not  certain  about  it  ? 

Answer.  I  received  word  about  the  time  the  check  fell  due  that  the 
government  would  accept  my  offer  ;  but  whether  a  day  or  two  before 
or  a  day  or  two  after  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  Did  you  not  receive  such  information  on  the  same  day 
that  the  check  be  ame  due? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  was  not  in  town  that  day. 

Question.  Was  it  not  a  short  time  after  you  received  the  information 
that  the  government  would  accept  your  offer  that  the  check  was  paid? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  receive  intelligence  that  the  govern- 
ment would  accept  it? 

Answer.  From  a  letter  directed  tome.  I  think  it  was  directed  to 
me,  and  sent  to  the  care  of  Prosper  M.  Wetraore. 

Question.   By  whom  was  the  letter  written  ? 

Answer.  The  letter  was  merely  a  copy  of  my  offer  to  sell,  and  under- 
neath was  written  the  acceptance  by  (tov.  Floyd,  and  beneath  that 
was  the  certificate  of  the  clerk  of  the  War  Office,  Mr.  Driukard,  that 
it  was  a  true  copy  of  the  original,  which  was  filed  in  the  office. 

Question.  You  received  that  letter  through  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  It  came  to  his  care.  I  resided  out  of  town ;  and  when  I 
was  in  town  I  was  generally  at  Prosper  M.  Wetmore's  office,  and  then, 
as  now,  a  great  many  letters  for  me  were  sent  there. 

Question.  Is  there  no  understanding  between  Prosper  M.  Wetmore 
and  you,  that  he  is  to  have  an  interest  in  this  balance  coming  to  you 
from  iSchell  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  will  he  be  paid  for  his  services  in  attending  to  this 
transaction  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  he  is  to  receive  anything. 

Question.  Will  you  swear  that  he  does  not  receive  any  pay,  directly 
or  indirectly,  for  his  negotiation  and  services  in  this  transaction  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  swear,  because  I  do  not  know  what  h.^  will 
receive. 

Question.  I  ask  you  whether  he  is  not,  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
receive  something  for  his  services  in  this  transaction? 

Answer.  There  is  no  agreement  of"  that  kind. 

Question.  Is  there  no  understanding? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Who  called  your  attention  to  purchase  this  property,  in 
order  to  sell  it  to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  heard  general  conversations  about 
that  piece  of  land  being  taken  for  the  government. 

Question.   Did  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  or  did  he  not? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  he  did.  We  talked  about  it  be- 
fore I  purchased  it. 

Question.   Was  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  then  staying  at  your  house? 

Answer.  No,  sir,     1   met  him  in  New  York.     I  came  down  fre- 


i 


TESTIMONY.  201 

quently  to  New  York  and  went  to  his  office.     I  do  not  know  whether 
he  spoke  to  me  first,  or  I  to  him. 

Question.  Did  he  say  to  you  that  he  thought  he  could  negotiate  the 
sale  to  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  inform  you  he  was  intimate  with  Floyd, 
Latham,  or  any  of  these  parties,  and  that  he  thought  he  could  help 
you  to  negotiate  this  sale? 

Answer.  He  may  have  said  something  of  the  kind  ;  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  spoke  of  Gov.  Floyd,  or  Latham,  because  I  do  not  know 
that  he  was  intimate  with  them. 

Question.  Was  any  of  the  purchase  money,  except  $1,000,  paid  to 
Weissman  for  this  property  until  the  draft  for  |115,000  was  received 
by  Mr.  Schell? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  and  what  part  of  it? 

Answer.  There  was  $1,000  paid  on  the  15th  April,  and  $9,000  the 
latter  part  of  April ;  I  cannot  tell  the  exact  day,  but  it  was  between 
the  25th  and  28th. 

Question.  You  say  Schell's  check  for  $9,000  was  substituted  for  the 
check  of  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  for  that  amount? 

Answer.  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  got  the  money  from  Richard 
Schell,  but  I  do  not  know  in  what  shape. 

Question.  Then  $1,000  and  $9,000  were  paid  in  April? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  There  were  some  incumbrances  upon  the  property  which 
were  paid  off? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Were  those  incumbrances  paid  off  before  the  $115,000 
was  received  from  the  government  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  were  they  paid? 

Answer.  About  the  7th  or  8th  of  July. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  they  were  paid  off  before  the 
$115,000  was  paid  to  Mr.  Schell? 

Answer.  $20,000  were  paid  when  I  received  the  deed,  which  cleared 
off  the  incumbrances.     Then  I  gave  a  mortgage. 

Question.   When  was  the  $20,000  paid? 

Answer.    It  was  before  the  4th  of  July. 

Question.   Are  you  certain  as  to  the  day? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  am  certain  it  was  before  the  4th.  The  money 
was  paid  to  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn.  Mr.  Wetmore,  I  understand,  paid 
it  to  him. 

Question.  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  paid  the  money  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   And  when  he  paid  it  was  the  time  it  was  paid  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  paid  the  first  $1,000  with  your  own  money,  did  you 
not? 

Answer.  It  was  my  own  money,  borrowed  from  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more. 


202  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Was  any  other  money  paid  in  this  purchase,  except  that 
derived  from  Mr.  Schell? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  none. 

Question.  This  was  in  July,  1857? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  any  real  estate  at  that  time? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  owned  some  about  a  mile  and  a  half  from  this 
property,  at  Whitestone. 

Question.  How  many  acres? 

Answer.  I  think  I  only  have  ^ve  left. 

Question.  What  is  it  worth  ? 

Answer.  I  ask  $2,000  an  acre  for  it? 

Question.  You  had  this  property  in  July,  1857? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Are  there  any  incumbrances  upon  the  property? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  What  was  the  whole  property  worth  at  that  time,  in  your 
judgment? 

Answer.  $10,000. 

Question.  Free  from  all  incumbrances? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.    Did  you  hold  it  in  your  own  right? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  also  own  property  at  Great  Neck,,  where  I  re- 
side.    I  own  two  separate  pieces  there. 

Question.  How  many  acres  ? 

Answer.  Ten  acres. 

Question.  What  was  it  worth,  in  your  own  judgment,  in  July,  1857? 

Answer.  I  asked  $25,000  for  it,  with  the  house  on  it.  I  consider 
it  worth  that. 

Question.  Are  any  incumbrances  upon  that? 

Answer.  At  present  there  is  an  incumbrance  of  $10,000. 

Question.  What,  a  mortgage? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  any  other  real  estate  in  July,  1857? 

Answer.  I  owned  an  undivided  share  in  my  father's  property  in 
New  York. 

Question.  What  do  you  consider  that  worth? 

Answer.  That  is  pretty  hard  to  tell. 

Question.   Is  your  mother  living  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  That  property  is  subject  to  her  life  estate? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Have  you  any  incumbrances  upon  that? 

Answer.  I  have  some  incumbrances  upon  it ;  there  are  some  $13,000 
upon  it. 

Question.  I  wish  to  ask  you  if  there  was  not  a  judgment  against 
you  in  the  month  of  April,  May,  June,  or  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a  judgment  against  me  which  had  been  can- 
celled some  two  years  before.  I  had  a  suit  on  a  subject  in  New  York, 
and  there  was  a  judgment  rendered  against  me.  I  settled  it  two  years 
previous  to  this  affair,  but  there  had  been  what  they  call  a  transfer, 


TESTmONY.  203 

or  something  of  the  kind,  filed  in  Queen's  county,  which  I  did  not 
know  anything  ahout,  and  never  heard  of  until  I  went  to  sell  this 
property,  when,  in  searching  the  title,  it  was  found  against  me,  and 
I  satisfied  it.  It  was  for  ahout  $250.  There  wsa  another  judgment 
against  a  George  Irving,  hut  it  was  not  against  me,  and  I  knew  nothing 
about  it. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversations  with  John  C.  Ma- 
ther on  the  subject  of  the  sale  and  purchase  of  this  Wilkins'  Point 
property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  I  had.  I  got  acquainted  with 
him  in  Mr.  Schell's  office  some  time  after  this. 

Question.  Some  time  after  the  purchase? 

Answer.  Yes^  sir. 

Question.  And  after  the  sale  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  Previous  to  the  sale. 

Question.   Who  introduced  him  to  you? 

Answer.  I  think  Mr.  Richard  Schell.  I  had  no  business  transac- 
tions with  him  ;  it  was  only  a  conversation. 

Question.  Did  he  take  any  interest  in  the  sale  of  this  property  to 
the  government? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of.  Mr.  Schell  was  very  anxious  to  get 
his  money  back  again,  as  he  found  he  was  going  to  be  pressed  for 
money. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  when  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  and  I.  V. 
Fowler  called  down  at  Wilkins'  Point  to  examine  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  could  not  tell  the  day,  but  I  remember  the  circumstance, 
because  I  met  them,  and  drove  them  down. 

Question.   Was  it  before  or  after  the  $9,000  check  was  paid? 

Answer.  I  *hink  it  was  before. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  certain? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  How  did  you  know  they  were  coming  down  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  went  up  to  Augustus  Schell's  office  and  asked 
him  ;  I  will  not  be  positive  about  it. 

Question.  Did  he  appoint  the  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Question.  You  and  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  met  him  with  your  car- 
riage ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  at  Flushing. 

Question.  You  knew  that  they  were  coming  down  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  went  to  Mr.  Schell's  office  and  asked  him  when 
he  was  coming  down,  and  he  did  not  give  me  a  decided  answer  ;  and  I 
think  I  then  told  him  to  send  word  to  Prosper  M,  Wetmore's  office 
when  he  intended  to  come. 

Question.  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  was  stopping  at  your  house  at 
that  time  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  was  there,  and  I  asked  liim  to  go  down  and 
meet  Augustus  Schell,  with  me,  as  I  was  but  slightly  acquainted  with 
him,  and  had  no  acquaintance  with  Fowler. 

Question.  Did  Richard  Schell  tell  you  to  appoint  a  time  with  his 
brother  to  go  down  ? 


204  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  had  a  great  deal  of  business  on  hand 
at  the  time,  and  I  did  not  charge  my  mind  with  it. 

Question.  What  was  your  business  then? 

Answer.  I  bought  and  sokl  property.  I  never  had  a  regular  busi- 
ness.    I  bought  and  sold  land  at  Whitestone. 

Question.  In  the  early  stage  of  the  examination  you  spoke  of  Mr, 
Schell,  without  designating  which  Schell  you  alluded  to? 

Answer.  I  alluded  to  Mr.  Kichard  Schell.  The  only  times  I  ever 
saw  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  was  first  when  I  went  to  bis  office,  he 
having  been  appointed  to  go  down  and  examine  the  pro])erty,  toask  him 
when  he  was  going  down,  and  second  when  I  met  him  at  Flashing. 
Those  are  the  only  times  I  ever  had  any  conversation  with  him. 

Question.  Did  Richard  Schell  and  John  C.  Mather  assist  you  in 
negotiating  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government? 

Answer.  They  may  have  done  it,  but  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  You  never  saw  the  Secretary  of  War? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  wrote  to  him,  but  did  not  write  more  than  one 
letter. 

Question,  Between  the  time  you  wrote  that  letter  and  the  time  you 
received  his  reply,  who  saw  the  Secretary  of  War  for  you,  or  otherwise 
negotiated  this  sale? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say.     I  do  not  know  that  anybody  did. 

Question.  Did  I  not  understand  you  to  say  that  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more  negotiated  the  sale  and  attended  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  not.     He  negotiated  the  sale  with  Schell. 

Question.  Was  there  ever  anything  passed  between  you  and  the  War 
Dej)artment  except  that  letter  to  which  Governor  Floyd  replied  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Did  you  ever  see  any  one  in  person  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  not  Richard  Schell,  John  C.  Mather,  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore,  or  any  other  person  assist  in  negotiating  the  sale  of  this 
property  with  the  War  Department? 

Answer.   Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  upon  that  letter  of  yours,  with- 
out ever  being  apf)lied  to  by  any  person,  the  War  Department  accepted 
your  proposition  ? 

Answer.  As  I  understand  it.  Of  course,  as  Mr.  Richard  Scliell  had 
agreed  to  advance  me  the  money  he  very  likely  might  liave  urged 
Governor  Floyd,  if  he  was  acquainted  witli  him,  to  purchase  it. 

Question.  Did  Schell  tell  you,  when  he  loaned  you  the  money,  that 
he  would  assist  in  negotiating  the  sale  to  the  government. 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  How  came  you  to  employ  William  C.  Wetmore  as  your 
attorney  ? 

Answer.  I  took  him  for  this  reason  ;  he  stands  very  high  as  a  real 
estate  lawyer,  and  if  he  searched  a  title  I  thought  the  government 
would  be  more  likely  to  take  it  than  if  it  was  done  by  a  lawyer  not 
known. 

Question.  Is  not  the  business  of  searching  the  title  usually  entrusted 
to  tlie  United  States  district  attorney  ? 

Answer.  1  thought  it  was  his  business. 


TESTIMONY.  205 

Question.  Was  it  not  in  this  case? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  got  William  C.  Wetmore  to  search  the  title 
for  myself,  not  knowing  at  the  time  that  it  was  the  United  States 
district  attorney's  business  to  do  it. 

Question.  Is  the  whole  of  the  mortgage  for  $5^000  upon  the  pro- 
perty due  ? 

Answer.  There  is  none  of  it  due. 

Question.   When  is  it  payable? 

Answer.  It  is  payable  in  five  years. 

Question.  Who  owns  it? 

Answer.  Mrs.  Weissman's  trustee  holds  it  for  her. 

Question.  Have  you,  or  any  other  party,  any  interest  in  the  mort- 
gage? 

Answer.  None  whatever. 

Question.  There  were  two  mortgages  executed  on  the  same  day, 
one  for  $85,000,  and  the  other  for  fifteen  thousand  odd  hundred  dol- 
lars to  Mr.  Van  Blankenstein  ;  what  was  the  cause  of  this  ?  Why 
were  two  mortojages  made  between  the  same  parties,  bearing  the  same 
dates  and  for  different  amounts  ? 

Answer.  The  reason  was  this :  I  told  you,  beforehand,  that  I  was 
to  pay  $45,000  down.  I  paid  $80,000,  if  you  will  recollect,  as  I  said, 
before  the  4th  of  July,  and  it  not  being  convenient  for  Mr.  Schell  to 
let  me  have  money  to  pay  the  balance  then,  my  lawyer,  Mr.  Wetmore, 
gave  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn  a  mortgage  for  it. 

Question.  Then,  whatever  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  did  in  the 
premises,  and  the  time  he  did  it,  can  be  relied  on  for  the  correct  cir- 
cumstances and  dates  of  the  transaction? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir  ;  I  left  it  all  to  William  C.  Wetmore. 

Question.  How  did  you  know  that  the  government  desired  to  pur- 
chase this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  know  that  they  desired  beyond  a  piece  of  it. 

Question.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  saw  in  the  ncvv^spapers 
that  the  government  was  seeking  to  purchase  property  for  fortification 
purposes  ? 

Answer.  I  saw  that  an  appropriation  had  passed  to  buy  a  site  for  a 
fortification  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  on  the  Long  Island  side,  and  I 
thought  this  the  most  feasible  piece  of  ground  for  the  purpose.  For 
twenty  years  it  had  been  talked  of  as  the  place  where  a  fort  was  going 
to  be  put  up.  When  Fort  Schuyler  was  built,  twenty  years  ago,  they 
said  they  would  want  this  piece  of  property  for  a  iort,  and  it  has  been 
impossible  to  do  anything  with  it,  because  people  would  not  buy  it, 
being  afraid  that  the  government  would  take  it  for  a  fortification.  It 
has  been  sold  at  all  sorts  of  prices. 

Question.  On  that  account? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  as  soon  as  the  bill  passed  making  an  appropria- 
tion for  the  purchase  of  a  site  for  a  fortification  opposite  Fort  Schuyler, 
I  concluded  that  it  would  settle  the  question,  and  I  went  over  to  buy 
the  property,  resolved  that  if  the  government  took  it  they  should  pay 
me  a  good  price  for  it,  and  if  they  did  not  take  it  I  knew  I  could  sell 
it  to  other  parties. 

Question.  You  bought  it  on  that  risk? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 


206  TESTBIONY. 

Question.  Without  any  promptings  or  suggestions  from  anybody? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  1  had  dealt  in  real  estate  in  the  neighborhood 
before,  at  Whitestone,  and  sold  it  at  the  highest  prices,,  $15,000  an 
acre,  land  that  I  had  purchased  for  $300  an  acre. 

Question.  When  you  purchased  this  property  did  you  consider  it 
cheap  at  $130,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  only  trouble  was  I  did  not  ask  the  govern- 
ment enough  for  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  You  offered  it  to  the  government  for 
$200,000? 

Answer.  I  think  that  was  only  a  fair  price. 

Question.  Do  you  think  it  was  worth  more  for  the  purpose  ? 

Answer.  It  was  worth  more  for  other  purposes? 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  Do  you  believe,  if  a  jury  of  condemnation 
had  been  selected,  they  would  have  awarded  that  price  for  the  prop- 
erty ? 

Answer.  I  would  have  preferred  leaving  the  price  to  be  fixed  by  an 
arbitration  rather  than  have  taken  the  $200,000  for  it.  I  should  have 
preferred  an  arbitration. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  You  say  Richard  Schell  paid  your  at- 
torney, William  C.  Wetmore  ;  how  much  did  he  pay  him  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  $750. 

Question.  After  the  government  accepted  your  proposition  to  sell, 
and  you  arranged  to  get  the  loan  through  Richard  Schell,  did  you  not 
leave  the  consummation  of  the  whole  transaction  to  William  C.  Wet- 
more  and  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  I  leit  it  all  to  William  C.  Wetmore.  He  was  to  get  the 
money  from  Richard  Schell. 

Question.  How  many  acres  of  land  have  the  government  purchased 
in  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.   130  acres. 

Tuesday,  Jpril  27,  1858. 

George  Irving's  examination  continued.  Examined  by  the  Chair- 
man. 

Question.  Have  you  reserved  any  land  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  In  searching  the  title  throughout  all  the  deeds,  there  was 
a  reservation  for  a  burying  place. 

Question.  How  much? 

Answer.  The  (quantity  is  not  stated,  but  it  is  about  as  big  as  this 
room,  (20  by  40  leet.)  With  that  exception,  I  conveyed  all  I  bought 
to  the  government,  and  the  reason  I  did  not  convey  that  was  that  1 
did  not  receive  a  warrantee  deed  for  the  property,  but  gave  a  war- 
rantee deed  for  it,  and  as  I  did  not  know  that  I  had  any  title  to  this 
burying  ])lace,  1  did  not  convey  it.  In  my  ])revious  examination 
there  is  a  ([uestion  I  answered  in  a  hurry  whicli  1  w^ould  like  to 
amend.  When  1  bought  the  ])roperty  I  engaged  a  competent  sur- 
veyor in  the  town  of  Flushing,  and  I  got  him  to  make  me  a  map  of 
the  property,  and  that  map  went  with  my  deed.  By  that  map,  there 
are  130  acres  down  to  low  water  mark  ;  to  high  water  mark  there  are 


TESTIMONY.  207 

about  112.     It  is  all  marked  down  on  that  map,  which,  I  believe, 
went  with  my  deed,  and,  I  think,  is  in  the  War  Department. 

Question.  You  conveyed  to  the  government  all  that  had  been  con- 
veyed to  you,  with  the  exception  of  the  burying  lot? 

Answer.  The  reason  I  did  not  convey  that  was  because  I  did  not 
know  that  I  owned  it,  nor  do  I  know  it  now. 

Question.  Is  it  fenced  in? 

Answer.  It  was  at  that  time.  It  was  the  burying  place  of  some  of 
the  old  inhabitants,  who  formerly  owned  the  place.  There  are  graves 
in  it. 

Question.  Is  it  protected  by  a  fence  or  wall? 

Answer.  It  was  not  at  that  time,  and  I  have  not  been  on  the 
property  since.  I  understand  that  the  government  has  fenced  the 
property  in,  putting  what  is  called  a  line  fence  between  them  and  Mr. 
Day  and  this  burying  ground,  which  is  directly  within  the  line. 

Question.  (Offer  of  sale  to  government  shown  witness.)  Is  that 
the  letter  you  referred  to  in  your  evidence  as  having  been  sent  by  you 
to  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  appears  to  be  a  correct  copy. 

Question.  Who  wrote  that  letter  ? 

Answer.  I  wrote  the  original  letter. 

Question.  Did  you  submit  it  to  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  before  you 
sent  it  ?  ^ 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I  believe  I  did  ;  I  am  not  positive  about  it. 

Question.   What  date  does  the  letter  bear  ? 

Answer.  April  3d. 

Question.  When  was  it  sent? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  ;  I  left  it  in  Mr.  Wetmore's  office  to  go  by 
mail. 

Question.  Did  you  leave  it  with  him  to  be  sent  by  mail? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  always  sends  his  letters  up  to  the  post  office, 
and  I  put  mine  with  them. 

Question  Did  Mr.  Wetmore  have  anything  to  do  with  the  framing 
of  that  letter?     Did  he  make  any  suggestions  as  to  the  form  of  it? 

Answer.  He  might  have  done  so.  It  strikes  me,  however,  I  wrote 
it  myself. 

Question.  Did  you  not  submit  it  to  him  for  his  approval? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  he  approved  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  did  you  receive  a  reply  to  that  letter? 

Answer.  I  cannot  state  distinctly. 

Question.  (Letter  shown  witness.)  Is  that  a  copy  of  the  letter  which 
was  received  in  reply  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I  believe  it  is. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  : 

War  Department, 
Washington,  May  13,  1857. 
Sir  :   Having  accepted  your  offer  to  sell  Willett's  or  Wilkina's  Neck, 
at  the  confluence  of  the  East  river  and  Long  Island  Sound,  and  oppo- 


208  TESTIMONY. 

site  to  Fort  Schuyler,  and  also  the  terms  for  the  payment  of  the  pur- 
chase money  ($200,000)  for  the  same,  I  have  to  inform  you,  that 
should  the  title  to  the  land  to  he  conveyed  to  the  United  States  prove, 
on  examination,  to  be  perfect,  and  be  so  certified  by  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  United  States,  as  required  by  the  joint  resolution  of 
September  11, 1841,  that  the  first  payment  on  the  land,  viz:  $115,000, 
will  be  paid  to  you  or  to  your  order  on  the  1st  day  of  July  next. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War, 
George  Irving,  Esq., 

Ntio  York  city. 

Question.  Are  those  two  papers  copies  of  the  correspondence  which 
you  referred  to  as  the  only  correspondence  which  passed  between  you 
and  the  Secretary  of  War? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  the  chief  clerk  of  the  War  Department 
(Mr.  Drinkard)  personally  in  relation  to  this  matter? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  anyone  connected  with  the  War  Depart- 
ment in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  There  were  certificates  of  the  value  of  the  property  ob- 
tained from  auctioneers  ;  who  wrote  those  certificates? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  who  wrote  them.  I  requested  Mr.  Wetmore 
to  get  them  for  me. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Ans-rver.  Some  time  in  April. 

Question.  You  did  not  write  those  certificates? 

Answer.  I  was  not  in  town. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Wetmore  wrote  them  or  not? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question    Mr.  Wetmore  got  them  for  you  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  I  suppose  he  did. 

Question.  Did  he  not  so  inform  you? 

Answer.    Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Who  sent  them  to  the  War  Department? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Did  not  Mr.  Wetmore  send  them? 

AnswcT.   I  do  not  know. 

Question.     Did  he  not  inform  you  that  he  sent  them? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  think  he  did. 

Question.  Did  you  call  on  any  of  the  auctioneers,  in  person,  whose 
names  a})pear  to  these  certificates,  before  they  signed? 

Answer.   No.  sir,  1  do  not  think  I  did. 

Question.  Did  you  employ  them  to  make  an  examination,  in  person, 
and  sign  the  certificates? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  send  any  one  else  to  them,  or  write  them? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 


TESTIMONY.  '209 

Question.  Did  you  pay  them  for  the  certificates? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  much? 

Answer.  I  think  |50  apiece. 

Question.  Who  was  with  you  when  you  paid  them  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  there  was  anybody  with  me. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  them  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  cannot  say  I  did. 

Question.  Did  he  not  inform  you  that  he  had  agreed  to  pay  them 
each  $50  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  may  have  consulted  Mr.  Wetmore  as  to  what 
they  ought  to  be  paid  ;  but  I  do  not  know  that  I  even  did  that. 

Question  Did  any  of  those  auctioneers  go  upon  the  property  at  your 
request  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  have  answered  that  question  before  ;  I  said  I  did 
not  see  them. 

Question.  Did  any  of  them  go  upon  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Who  were  the  auctioneers  ? 

Answer.  I  think  they  were  Mr  Burling,  Mr.  Miller,  Mr.  Baker, 
and  some  others,  whom  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question.  Was  Mr   T.  B.  Bleecker  one? 

Answer.  I  did  not  see  him. 

Question.  Were  those  gentlemen  real  estate  auctioneers? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Were  they  judges  of  property? 

Answer.  I  thought  so  ;  in  my  judgment  they  were. 

Question.   What  did  they  say  the  property  was  worth? 

Answer.  Their  certificate  certified  that  it  was  worth,  I  think,  over 
$2,000  an  acre. 

Question.  Did  they  all  agree  as  to  its  value? 

Answer.  They  signed  a  certificate  to  that  effect. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  The  object  you  had  in  view  was  to  com- 
municate to  the  War  Department  the  opinion  of  persons  competent  to 
exercise  judgment  in  relation  to  the  value  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Were  these  men  of  reputation? 

Answer.  Yes^  sir  ;  I  considered  them  such  or  I  would  not  have  em- 
ployed them. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Have  you  ever  received  any  interest 
from  Mr.  Schell  for  the  money  you  left  in  his  hands  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  desire  to  make  a  statement.  I  spoke,  on  my 
previous  examination,  about  the  payments  of  the  money,  and  I  desire 
to  say  that  the  first  payment  of  $1,0('0,  and  a  check  for  $9,000,  I 
made  myself ;  all  the  rest  of  the  payments  were  made  by  Mr.  William 
0.  Wetmore  for  me,  and  all  the  money  that  was  received  to  make 
those  payments  was  received  by  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore.  I  was 
never  present  when  any  money  was  received  by  him,  or  when  any 
money  was  paid  by  him. 

Question.   Who  did  he  receive  this  money  from  ? 

Answer.  From  Mr.  Kichard  8chell,  I  presume. 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549— U 


210  TESTIMONY. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  was  your  at- 
torney ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  In  whom  you  had  entire  confidence? 

Answer.    Yes,  sir. 

Question.  You  entrusted  the  entire  control  of  this  transaction  to 
him? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  He  acted  for  you,  and  you  alone,  and  by  your  direction, 
in  this  transaction  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Had  he  ever  been  your  attorney  on  any 
other  occasion? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  My  reason  for  putting  it  all  in  his  hands  was 
this:  The  receipt  for  the  first  payment  I  took  from  Mr.  Weissman,  and 
afterwards,  when  I  engaged  Mr.  Wetmore  to  attend  to  the  business 
for  me,  he  said  that  the  receipt  was  not  a  legal  one,  that  it  should 
have  been  given  by  Mr.  Van  Blankenstyn,  who  was  the  trustee.  I 
then  said  that  I  would  put  the  whole  matter  in  his  hands  and  he 
should  attend  to  it  for  me. 

Thursday,  May\^^  1858. 

William  R.  Drinkard  sworn: 

Examined  by  the  chairman,  Hon.  John  B.  Haskin. 

Question.  You  are  the  chief  clerk  in  the  War  Department  ? 

Answer.  I  am,  and  have  been  since  the  first  of  Aprils  1857. 

Question.  Where  did  you  reside  previously  ? 

Answer.  In  Eichmond,  Virginia. 

Question.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  the  knowledge  you  have 
of  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  witli  the  purchase  of  the 
property  at  Wilkins'  Point  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  have  very  little  knowledge  about  it ;  most  that  I  know 
of  it  I  have  learned  through  other  persons  ;  the  first  that  I  knew  of 
any  intention  or  desire  on  the  part  of  the  engineer  bureau,  which  has 
charge  of  fortifications,  to  purchase  tliis  property  after  the  passage  of 
the  act,  was  the  appearance  of  General  Totten  at  the  department, 
desiring  to  see  the  Secretary  in  reference  to  the  matter. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  when  that  occurred  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember.  I  sup{)ose  it  was  either  in  the  month 
of  April  or  May  ;  it  was  early  after  I  came  to  Washington. 

Question.   You  came  here  on  tlic  1st  of  April  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  Governor  Floyd  came  here  on  the  4th  of  March. 
The  chief  engineer  and  the  Secretary  had  various  interviews,  I 
presume,  because  the  chief  engineer  came  to  my  room  and  asked  to 
go  into  the  Secretary's  room  ;  a  good  many  papers  passed  between 
them  ;  General  Totten  would  come  in  once  and  a  while  and  say  that 
he  had  a  paper  to  submit  to  the  Secretary.  What  the  papers  con- 
tained I  did  not  know  until  after  tlie  transaction.  The  only  positive 
knowledge  I  have  on  the  subject  is^  that  one  day  when  Governor  Floyd 


TESTIMONY.  211 

returned  from  a  Cabinet  meeting,  (I  generally  waited  there  until  he 
returned  from  the  Cabinet^)  he  called  me  into  his  room  and  desired 
me  to  write  as  he  dictated.  He  addressed  a  letter,  I  think,  to  Mr. 
Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler,  in  New  York  city.  I  wrote  that  letter  irt 
accordance  with  his  dictation,  and  I  understood  him  to  say  that  the 
letter  had  been  agreed  upon  in  Cabinet  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
the  President  and  himself  to  ascertain,  as  accurately  as  possible  from 
disinterested  parties,  the  value  of  the  property,  or  what  the  govern- 
ment ought  to  pay  for  it. 

Question.  Was  that  on  the  day  the  letter  bears  date? 

Answer.  It  might  have  borne  date  on  the  next  day,  simply  from  the 
fact  that  the  Secretary  generally  comes  from  Cabinet  at  half-past 
four  or  five  o'clock,  after  all  the  clerks  have  left;  and  as  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  such  letters  copied  and  recorded  it  was  not  probably 
signed  until  the  next  day  and  dated  on  that  day. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  the  reply  to  that  letter  was  received 
from  Mr.  Schell? 

Answer.  It  was  some  time  after. 

By  the  Chairman.  Mr.  Schell's  reply  is  dated  the  24th  of  April  ; 
was  it  received  at  the  department  shortly  after  that  ? 

Witness.  If  the  reply  was  dated  the  24th  of  April,  I  suppose  it 
was  received  at  the  department  after  that  time.  General  Totten's 
interviews  with  the  Secretary  must  have  been  before  that.  The  only 
other  important  fact  that  I  remember,  is  the  purchase  of  the  property 
from  Mr.  Irving.  Mr.  Irving  addressed  a  note  to  the  Secretary,  I 
think,  offering  to  sell  the  property. 

Question.  What  was  the  date  of  that  note? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.   Do  you  recollect  when  it  was  received? 

Answer.  Possibly  it  was  received  after  I  came  there,  and  very  pos- 
sibly after  its  receipt  the  letter  was  written  to  Mr.  Schell.  I  could  not 
say  now,  without  looking  at  the  record. 

Question.   Was  Mr.  Irving  ever  at  the  War  Department? 

Answer.  I  think  I  have  seen  Mr.  Irving  in  the  department  once, 
and  that  was,  probably,  when  he  came  to  receive  his  money. 

Question.  But  once? 

Answer.  But  once. 

Question.  Who  was  with  him? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  ;  the  gentleman  who  accompanied  him 
was  a  Mr.  Wetmore,  a  lawyer,  a  short  stout  man. 

Question.  It  was  not  Prosper  ^I.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  It  was  not  the  Wetmore  I  have  heard  called  general.  Mr. 
Joachimsen  brought  on  the  title  papers  with  the  abstract  according  to 
the  requisitions  of  the  Attorney  General,  who  submitted  them  to 
him,  and  they  were  found  not  to  be  sufficient ;  this  was  just  previous 
to  Mr.  Wetmore  coming  here.  Mr.  Joachimsen  expected  to  return  to 
New  York,  and  have  them  corrected,  but  it  turned  out  afterwards  as 
I  heard,  that  instead  of  going  to  New  York  he  went  to  Newport;  and 
that  occasioned  the  visit  of  Mr.  Wetmore  to  bring  on  the  perfected 
title  papers.     That  was  the  reason,  I  understood,  for  Mr.  Wetmore's 


2 1  2  TESTIMONY. 

coming.    [A  letter  was  here  shown  the  witness,  dated  March  30,  185t, 
from  Captain  Wright  to  Major  Barnard,  in  New  York  ] 

Question.  The  concluding  words  of  that  letter  are,  ^'  the  Secretary 
of  War  considers  it  indispensable  to  procure  this  haw  of  condemnation 
of  the  land  opposite  Fort  Schuyler."     Do  you  know  whether  that  was 
written  by  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Your  attention  was  not  called  to  that  ? 
Answer.  Ko,  sir  ;  all  those  papers  were  submitted  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  by  either  the  chief  CDgineer  or  his  assistant,,  Capt.  Wright. 

[A  copy  of  a  telegraphic  despatch,  dated  March  31, 1857,  from  Maj. 
Barnard  to  Capt.  Wright,  was  here  shown  witness.] 
Question.   Do  you  know  anything  about  that  despatch? 
Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  On  the  first  day  of  April  there  is  a  reply  to  that  despatch, 
written  by  General  Totten,  in  which  he  says,  "  1  have  seen  the  Sec- 
retary of  War,  who  adheres  to  former  instructions,  and  will  not  agree 
to  paying  so  much  for  the  land  without  further  investigation  and  an 
act  of  condemnation.  The  act  should  be  promptly  secured  ;"  do  you 
know  whether  that  was  written  by  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of 
War? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not.  I  did  not  enter  office  until  the  first  of 
April,  and  it  was,  of  course,  some  time  before  I  became  acquainted 
with  the  business  of  the  department. 

[Irving' s  offer  of  sale  to  the  Secretary  of  War  was  here  shown 
witness.] 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  whether  that  proposition  was  received 
by  mail  or  delivered  in  person  ?  There  is  no  statement  on  the  back 
of  it  showing  when  it  was  received  at  the  War  Department,  as  there 
is  upon  most  of  the  other  papers  ? 

Answer.  I  see  no  evidence  on  the  back  of  it  to  satisfy  me  that  it 
was  sent  by  mail,  though  it  may  have  been,  and  I  rather  suppose  was. 
I  think  it  very  probable  that  it  was  sent  in  an  envelope,  addressed  to 
Mr.  Floyd. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  the  fact? 
Answer.  Now,  sir. 

Question.  Is  it  not  usual  for  you  to  endorse  upon  such  papers  the 
time  they  were  received  ? 

Answer.  We  do,  but  not  always.  The  papers  are  in  Mr.  Floyd's 
liands  before  they  come  to  me  ;  and  sometimes,  instead  of  sending 
them  out  to  me  immediately,  he  takes  them  up  and  investigates  the 
subject  and  acts  upon  them  himself.  My  impression  is,  that  as  soon 
he  received  this  he  i)ut  it  into  his  bundle  of  papers  and  carried  it  over 
to  the  President's,  and  possibly  that  accounts  for  it  not  being  marked. 
Question.  By  wliom  was  the  endorsement  on  that  paper  made? 
Answer.  It  is  very  probable  that  it  was  made  by  me  at  his  direc- 
tion, and  on  the  day  it  bears  date.  I  cannot  say  positively  ;  but  I 
could  by  referring  to  the  original  papers. 

Question    It  was  either  done  by  him  or  you,  by  his  direction? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  it  was  sent  the  day  it  bears  date? 


TESTIMONY.  213 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  the  deed  from  Irving  to  the  gov- 
ernment was  submitted  to  Gov.  Floyd  ? 

Answer.  It  was  submitted  to  Grov.  Floyd  finally. 

Question.    Before  the  payment  was  made? 

Answer  Yes,  sir  ;  b  it  I  do  not  know  that  he  read  it.  Our  rule, 
when  we  get  the  title  papers,  is,  to  submit  them  at  once  to  the  Attor- 
ney General,  and  ask  his  oliicial  opinion  as  to  whether  they  convey  a 
title  to  the  United  IStates. 

Question.  There  is  a  memorandum  upon  the  deed  from  Irving  to 
the  government ;  do  you  recohect  whether  it  was  written  by  you  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say  positively,  but  I  think  it  very  probable  that 
I  wrote  it  ;  if  I  did,  it  was  by  his  direction. 

Question  That  memorandum  does  not  specify  to  whom  the  payment 
should  be  made  ;  was  there  any  statement  made  by  Governor  Floyd 
at  the  time  as  to  whom  the  $115,000  should  be  paid? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  none  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  That  memorandum  was  written  on  the  day  it  bears  date  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  On  that  day  the  order  was  given  for  the  payment  ;  and 
this  memorandum  is  the  order? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  That  went  to  the  engineer  department? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  engineer  department  took  the  initiative  for 
drawing  the  draft ;  they  sent  a  requisition,  which  the  Secretary  of  War 
signed,  and  that  went  down  I  think  to  the  Second  Comptroller. 

Question.  Did  you  attend  to  it? 

Answer.  The  engineer  department  sent  the  requisition  over  to  me, 
and  I  got  the  Secretary  to  sign  it,  and  it  was  then  entered  in  our 
books  by  what  is  called  a  "  requisition  clerk." 

Question.   Who  called  on  you  in  regard  to  it  on  that  day? 

Answer.  I  presume  Mr.  Irving  ;  I  do  not  distinctly  remember. 

Question.     Any  other  gentlemen  ? 

Answer.  William  0.  Wetmore  may  have  been  with  him.  It  was 
about  the  lime  he  was  here,  because  as  soon  as  the  Attorney  General 
expressed  his  satisfaction  with  the  title  papers,  the  order  was  made. 

Question.   Do  you  know  John  C.  Mather? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Did  he  call  on  you  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  Did  he  not  call  on  you  on  the  Gth,  7th,  or  8th  of  Julv, 
1857? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  remember  ever  having  any  conversation 
with  Mr    Mather  on  the  subject. 

Question.   Do  you  know  Kobert  W.  Latham? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question.  Has  he  a  desk  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 

Answer.  He  has  not. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  Kobert  W.  Latham? 

Answer.  Since  1849  or  1850,  I  think. 

Question.  What  connexion  has  he  with  Governor  Floyd? 


214  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  None  other  than  that  of  agent  to  transact  his  private 
business. 

Question.  Was  he  not  very  frequently^  almost  daily,  at  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  War  during  the  months  of  April,  May,  June,  and 
July,  1857? 

Answer.  He  was  in  the  War  Department  very  frequently. 

Question.  Has  he  any  table  or  desk  there? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he,  during  the  months  of  April  or  May,  ever  have 
any  conversation  with  you  in  reference  to  this  purchase? 

Answer.  None  that  I  remember. 

Question.  Did  he  have  any  conversation  with  William  C.  Wet- 
more? 

Answer.  I  have  no  idea. 

Question.  Had  he  any  with  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of;  not  in  my  presence. 

Question.  Did  he  never  express  any  opinion  to  you  during  the 
months  I  have  referred  to,  in  relation  to  this  transaction  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  whether  he  was  at  the  War  Department 
on  the  6th,  Yth,  or  8th  of  July,  1857? 

Answer.  I  could  not  say.  He  has  been  there  a  great  deal,  but  I 
could  not  specify  any  particular  day. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  persons  having  applied  to  you 
besides  Mr.  Irving,  on  the  Gth,  7th  or  8th  of  July,  to  urge  the  close 
of  this  transaction? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  none.  When  gentlemen  come  to  see  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  in  reference  to  business  I  make  it  my  business  to  get 
them  into  his  room  as  soon  as  possible,  and  it  is  very  seldom  that  a 
gentleman  tells  me  what  his  business  is. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  whether  on  the  6th,  7th  or  8th  of  July, 
1857^  Mather  had  an  interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  relation 
to  the  purchase  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,  because  I  am  very  seldom  in  his  room,  and 
when  I  am  obliged  to  go  in  while  gentlemen  are  conversing,  the  con- 
versation ceases. 

The  following  letter  was  shown  witness  : 

Question.  Was  that  letter  written  by  you  at  the  request  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  War,  or  was  it  written  by  the  Secretary  himself. 

Answer.  I  could  not  speak  positively,  but  I  tliink  it  probable  that 
it  was  written  by  me  at  his  direction,  as  I  generally  prepare  these  let- 
ters. Sometimes  jMr.  Potts,  who  has  been  chief  clerk  in  tlie  depart- 
ment, but  is  now  what  we  call  the  *'  accounting  clerk,"  writes  a  letter 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  Secretary,  but  it  is  seldom  ;  generally  the 
letters  the  Secretary  desires  to  prepare  he  prepares  through  me. 

Question.  Did  ]\lr.  Edward  CroswcU  ever  have  any  conversation 
with  you  in  relation  to  this  subject? 

Answer.   Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 


i 


TESTIMONY.  215 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  him  at  your  department  on  business 
connected  with  this  subject? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  him  in  reference 
to  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  whether,  during  the  months  of  June 
or  July,  he  had  an  interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War  on  this 
subject  ? 

Answer.  No^  sir. 

J.  S.  Black,  affirmed. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  J.  B.  Haskin. 

Question.  You  are  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

[The  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  as  to  the  title  of  the  Wilkins' 
Point  property  was  here  shown  witness.] 

Question.  State  whether  that  opinion  was  prepared  or  written  by 
you,  at  whose  request  it  was  written,  and  under  what  peculiar  circum- 
stances, if  they  were  peculiar  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  that  this  opinion  was  not  prepared  by  me  in 
person.  When  I  first  came  into  the  office  I  made  up  my  mind  that  I 
would  examine  all  these  titles  myself  personally  ;  in  most  of  them  the 
papers  are  very  voluminous,  and  I  found  I  could  not  do  it,  so  1  made 
a  series  of  rules,  which,  perhaps,  you  have  seen,  of  which  a  circular 
copy  was  sent  to  all  the  district  attorneys,  and  all  the  departments, 
and  everybody  else  who  might  be  expected  to  ever  be  under  the  neces- 
sity of  asking  an  opinion  of  the  office  in  such  a  question.  With  the 
aid  of  these  rules,  prescribinor  to  the  district  attorneys  what  they  had 
to  do,  and  to  all  the  other  officers  of  the  government  what  sort  of  evi- 
dence was  required  by  the  government,  and  prescribing  also  to  my 
assistant,  it  was  unnecessary  for  me,  when  I  was  assured  that  the  title 
was  proved  according  to  these  rules,  to  re-examine  the  papers.  I  be- 
lieve, now,  that  it  is  a  better  system  than  if  I  had  undertaken  to  ex- 
amine them  myself,  because  I  would  have  had  to  examine  a  bushel  of 
papers  in  every  case,  and  I  could  not  do  it.  I  found  that  the  constant 
practice  in  the  office,  before  I  came  in,  had  been  to  appoint  an  assistant 
to  make  these  examinations.  I  have  never  had  any  difficulty  with  any 
of  them  ;  they  have  always  been  correctly  certified.  The  rule  is  this  : 
that  unless  there  be  some  doubtful  point  in  the  case,  the  opinion  is 
prepared  by  the  assistant  and  submitted  to  me  ;  I  do  nothing  more 
than  read  it,  and  see  that  it  is  right,  and  then  sign  it.  I  suppose  I 
signed  this  as  I  signed  others. 

Question.   Who  was  your  assistant  at  that  time? 

Answer.  Mr.  Gillett. 

Question.  Upon  the  application  of  what  party  was  this  opinion 
written  ? 

Answer.  The  application  must  have  come  from  the  War  Depart- 
ment.    I  would  not  have  received  the  application  from  any  one  else. 


216'  TESTBIONY, 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  having  been  called  upon  about  the  time 
it  was  signed  by  John  C.  Mather  and  Richard  Shell,  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  do  not  think  I  know  Mr.  Mather  more  than 
from  once  having  met  him  on  the  pavement,  and  being  simply  intro- 
duced to  him.  If  either  of  those  gentlemen  said  anything  to  me,  it 
must  have  been  with  the  intention  of  hurrying  it  through. 

Question.  The  deed  conveying  the  property  to  the  government  con- 
tains a  clause  stating  that  there  is  a  mortgage  of  $85,000  upon  the 
property,  the  payment  of  which  is  assumed  by  the  United  States  ;  do 
you  remember  it  ? 

Acswer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Had  the  fact  been  called  to  your  attention  in  any  way  at 
the  time  you  certified  to  this  title,  that  the  government  was  pur- 
chasing the  property  for  $200^000,  when  the  appropriation  for  the 
purpose  was  only  $150,000? 

Answer.  Never. 

Question.  You  did  not  know  that  fact  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  know  at  the  time  of  the  passing  of  the  title  that 
there  was  a  mortgage  of  §85,000  upon  the  property,  which  the  gov- 
ernment, by  the  deed,  assumed? 

Answer.  I  knew  nothing  about  this  case.  My  attention  was  not 
called  to  it  further  than  what  my  official  duties  required  me  to  attend 
to,  and  that  consisted  in  nothing  except  an  examination  of  the  title 
and  a  certificate  as  to  whether  the  title  was  good  or  not.  It  was 
brought  once  to  the  office,  but  was  rejected  for  want  of  sufficient  proof 
and  sent  back  ;  and  I  do  not  think  it  was  returned  until  probably  two 
months  afterwards. 

Question.  What  v/as  the  objection  to  the  title  when  it  was  first 
presented? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  ;  but  it  was  sent  back. 

Question.  Would  Mr.  Gillett  or  the  papers  show  when  it  was  first 
presented  and  rejected  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir  ;  I  take  it  for  granted  they  would. 

Question.  The  fact  of  the  government  becoming  liable  for  this  mort- 
gage of  $85,000  was  never  called  to  your  attention  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  inquired  into  the  price  paid  for  the  pro- 
perty ;  it  was  not  my  business  to  inquire  into  it  at  all.  One  of  the 
rules  which  I  laid  down  in  that  circular,  which  I  take  it  for  granted 
was  comjdied  with  when  this  title  came  before  the  office,  was,  that  no 
title  should  pass  and  be  certified  to  unless  there  was  a  certificate  from 
the  proper  officer  of  the  county  and  place  where  the  liens  would  be 
recorded,  that  there  were  no  liens  on  it. 

Question.  On  the  acceptance  of  the  offer  made  by  Mr.  Irving  to  sell 
this  property  to  the  government,  signed  by  Mr.  Floyd,  the  Secretary 
provided  tliat  tlie  title  should  be  examined  and  i)as.sed  upon  by  the 
United  States  district  attorney  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York  ; 
why  was  it  that  this  title  was  taken  from  his  hands  and  passed  upon 
by  you  ? 

Answer.  It  must  be  passed  ui)on  by  me.  Tlie  act  of  1841  requires 
my  certificate  to  it  before  it  can  be  passed  ;  it  requires  that  it  shall  be 


TESTIMONY.  217 

examined  in  the  Attorney  General's  office,  and  that  a  certificate  shall 
be  given  there  that  it  is  good.  The  law  does  not  require  that  it  shall 
be  submitted  to  the  district  attorney  or  to  anybody  else  except  the 
Attorney  General ;  but  the  submission  of  a  title  of  this  kind  to  the 
local  law  officer  of  the  government  at  the  place  where  the  land  lies,  is 
a  regulation  of  the  Attorney  General  for  convenience,  because  it  is  sup- 
posed that  the  district  attorney  ought  to  be  familiar  with  the  local 
Jaws  ;  and  he  is  in  the  neighborhood  where  he  can  search  the  records, 
and  he  may  have  some  special  knowledge  in  relation  to  the  property 
in  question.  I  have  said,  therefore,  in  that  circular  that  I  would  ex- 
amine no  title  until  it  was  first  submitted  to  counsel  of  known  respec- 
tability, who  would  make  out  a  brief  which  should  be  submitted  to 
the  district  attorney  for  the  district  in  which  the  land  was  to  certify, 
an  opinion  on  the  whole  title,  and  to  state  particularly  whether  the 
local  laws  were  correctly  given,  the  papers  properly  authenticated, 
and  the  facts  established  by  satisfactory  proof. 

Question.  This  title  had  been  submitted  to  the  district  attorney  at 
New  York,  and  he  had  gone  on  and  examined  it,  but  had  not  yet 
completed  his  examination  when  the  papers  were  taken  from  him  and 
the  title  passed  upon  exclusively  by  your  office.  I  want  the  reasons 
for  that  ? 

Answer.  That  must  have  been  at  the  time  it  was  sent  back  ;  I 
think  it  was  brought  into  the  office  at  one  time,  with  a  communi- 
cation from  the  Secretary  of  War,  requesting  me  to  examine  the  title 
and  certify,  according  to  the  joint  resolution  of  1841,  whether  it  was 
good  or  not  ;  that  some  defect  was  found  in  the  title,  as  then  pre- 
sented, and  it  was  sent  back  with  a  rejection,  stating  that  it  was  not 
perfect,  and  what  was  needed  to  make  it  right,  what  further  investi- 
gation was  required  before  I  would  certify  ;  that  then  it  was  returned 
to  the  Attorney  General's  office,  perhaps  two  months  after,  with  the 
defect  supplied  by  new  or  better  proof. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  William  C.  Wetmore,  of  New  York, 
calling  on  you  in  relation  to  this  title? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  It  is  not  at  all  impossible  he  may  have  done  so  ; 
but  the  multitude  of  cases  in  relation  to  which  lawyers  have  called 
upon  me,  renders  it  impossible  for  me  to  remember  any  particular 
one  ;  it  is  also  probable  that  if  he  called  on  me  and  mentioned  his 
business,  I  would  have  referred  him  to  Mr.  Gillett  as  the  person  who 
could  have  given  him  more  information  than  myself. 

By  Mr.  Florence.  It  is  not  unusual  for  you  to  have  visits  on  im- 
portant business? 

Answer.  Oh,  no;  everybody  calls  about  everything  ;  whatever  they 
desire  to  have  done — for  instance,  to  urge  a  speedy  examination. 

Question.  You  know  nothing  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  this 
purchase  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  not. 

The  Chairman.  I  wish  to  ask  you  this  one  question,  which,  I  am 
frank  to  say,  I  put  because  of  the  statement  of  Governor  Floyd  that 
the  subject  of  this  purchase  had  been  discussed  in  Cabinet.  I  simply 
wish  to  know  whether,   to   your  knowledge,  the  subject  of  this  pur- 


"21 8  TESTIMONY. 

oliase  was  discussed  in  Cabinet  during  the  months  of  March  and  April 
1857. 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Permit  me  to  ask  you  whether  you  attended  all  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Cabinet  during  these  months? 

Answer.  I  think  it  may  be  said  that  I  attended  nearly  all  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Cabinet  from  the  11th  of  Maich,  when  I  came  in,  down  to 
July.  I  missed  two^  then,  by  absence  up  at  a  watering  place  in  Vir- 
ginia. I  missed  four  or  five  by  an  absence  of  two  weeks  at  home,  in 
October.  I  missed  a  good  many  during  this  last  winter,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  necessity  of  my  being  in  the  Supreme  Court. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  the  subject  of  having  this  property 
condemned  under  an  act  passed  by  the  legislature  of  New  York,  was 
discussed  in  Cabinet  ? 

Answer.  Not  during  those  two  months.  My  attention  was  never  called 
to  the  subject  in  any  way  until  I  heard  of  it  as  a  purchase  made.  I  can- 
not tell  you  when  it  was,  or  whether  the  purchase  had  been  actually 
made;  but  the  first  I  heard  of  it  was  as  a  purchase  actually  made.  It  does 
not  follow  from  that  that  something  may  not  have  been  said  upon  the 
subject  in  Cabinet  meeting  ;  if  I  were  to  express  an  opinion,  I  would 
say  something  that  had  been  said  about  it ;  when  I  answer  this  ques- 
tion in  the  negative,  I  speak  of  my  own  recollection  only  ;  I  do  not 
remember  the  name  of  the  property,  or  of  any  person  connected  in  the 
sale  of  it,  or  anything  else  by  which  I  could  identify  this  business  as 
having  been  under  consideration  when  we  were  in  oflicial  attendance 
at  the  President's  ;  but  it  may  have  been,  and  not  being  in  my  de- 
partment, or  in  any  way  connected  with  it,  no  legal  question  being 
involved,  my  attention  was  not  specially  called  to  it  ;  we  do  not  do 
things  in  the  Cabinet  by  voting  ;  it  is  not  necessary  that  ever}^  indi- 
vidual should  make  up  his  mind  about  each  part  cular  thing  ;  when 
the  President  is  satisfied  that  a  thing  is  right,  if  his  assent  is  neces- 
sary, he  gives  it  upon  the  advice  of  those  members  of  the  Cabinet  who 
were  supposed  to  have  some  knowledge  upon  it ;  there  may  have  been 
s.n  interview  between  the  President  and  Secretary  of  War  on  the 
subject  in  Cabinet,  and  I  was  told  by  one  of  the  members  that  he  heard 
the  subject  mentioned  in  Cabinet. 

Question.  My  object  was  to  know  whether  this  subject  had  been 
under  frequent  discussion  in  Cabinet,  and  whether  the  ofter  to  sell  of 
Mr.  Irving  was  discussed,  and  also  the  advisability  of  liaving  an  act 
of  condemnation  passed  ? 

Answer.  In  answer  to  those  questions  I  can  only  say  this:  that  any 
■discussion  or  mention  of  this  subject  in  any  Cabinet  council  or  else- 
where, in  my  hearing,  must  have  occurred,  if  it  did  occur  at  all,  at  a 
time  when  I  did  not  consider  it  a  (question  of  any  sort  of  importance; 
when  I,  thinking  it  one  of  the  ordinary  operations  of  one  of  the  de- 
partments with  which  1  had  nothing  to  do,  suffered  it  to  pass  without 
paying  any  attention  to  it,  conceiving  it  to  be  a  mere  routine  busi- 
ness. Since  then  the  matter  has  come  to  me  through  the  public  me- 
dium it  has  reached  others,  but  I  have  heard  nodisciissionof  it  in  Cabi- 
net since  tlie  time  my  attention  was  called  to  it  by  the  newspa2)ers  of 
the  day. 


TESTIMONY.  219 

Question.  If  the  first  had  been  called  to  your  attention  as  the 
Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  that  an  appropriation  of 
S150,000  had  been  made  for  this  purchase  and  that  the  government 
had  agreed,  through  one  of  its  departments,  to  pay  |200,000,  would 
you,  under  such  circumstances,  have  ratified  or  recommended  the  pur- 
chase ? 

Answer.  No  ;  I  would  not  have  recommended  the  purchase;  but  it 
would  not  have  been  my  duty  to  say  yes  or  no  to  the  purchase;  that  is 
a  question  of  administrative  policy  and  not  of  law.  If  you  submit  to 
me  as  a  question  of  law  whether  I  w^ould  answer  yes  or  no  ;  a  witness 
testifies  to  facts  generally,  and  it  is  hard  to  swear  to  law  in  this 
country;  but  I  say  I  would  have  considered  it,  and  would  have  had  no 
hesitation  in  faying  that  the  War  Department,  or  no  other  depart- 
ment of  the  government  is  authorized  to  expend  more  money  than  is 
appropriated  for  a  particular  purpose.  It  is  useless  to  affect  doubts 
upon  the  subject ;  it  is  too  clear  to  hesitate  upon. 

Friday,  Haij  14,  1858. 

R.  H.  GiLLETT,  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  J.  B.  IIaskin  : 

Question.  Are  you  connected  with  the  ofiice  of  the  Attorney  Gene- 
ral of  the  United  States  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  ceased  ray  connexion  witli  it  the  last  day  of 
last  month. 

Question.  Were  you,  during  the  months  of  April,  May,  June,  and 
July,  1857,  connected  Avith  it? 

Answer.  For  about  four  years  previous  to  the  end  of  last  month  I 
was  connected  with  it,  simply  in  the  capacity  of  a  clerk. 

Question.   I  thought  you  were  the  assistant  Attorney  General. 

Answer.  They  have  been  in  the  habit  of  so  terming  the  position  I 
held.  It  was  the  highest  salaried  position  in  the  oftice,  but  still  it 
was  only  a  clerkship,  and  the  salary  so  small  that  I  resigned. 

[The  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,  dated  July  7,  1857,  was  here 
shown  witness.] 

Question.  State  whether  you  wrote  that  opinion  ;  and  if  so,  under 
what  circumstances  ? 

Answer.  The  subject  was  first  called  to  our  attention  by  the  follow- 
ing letter : 

War  Dp:partment, 
WasJiinglon,  Jlay  23,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  an  abstract  of  title  of 
George  Irving  to  certain  land  in  Flushing,  Queen's  county,  New 
York,  known  as  "Thome's  or  Willet's  Neck,"  purchased  for  the  site 
of  a  fortification  to  be  erected  there,  and  to  request  your  opinion  as  to 
the  sufficiency  of  it. 

Very  respectfullv,  vour  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War. 
Hon.  John  S.  Black. 

Attorney  General. 


220  TESTIMONY. 

That  letter  was  either  brought,  or  some  person  called  at  the  office 
very  soon  after  who  claimed  to  have  an  interest  in  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  the  person  was? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  it  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  known  him  for  years. 

Question.  Was  it  John  C.  Mather? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Was  it  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  :  I  do  not  think  it  was  Schell.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  person  who  called  was  a  smallish  man,  who  claimed  that  he 
was  the  grantor  and  conveyancer,  and  had  an  interest  in  it,  and  was 
desirous  that  the  matter  should  be  hurried  through. 

Question.  Was  the  person  George  Irving? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember.  I  remember  the  appearance  of  the 
man,  but  I  do  not  remember  his  name.  He  was  a  smallish  man,  past 
the  middle  age.  I  told  him  of  the  difficulties  in  the  title,  and  I  sup- 
pose of  the  defect  in  the  manner  of  getting  it  up  :  for,  on  the  27th  of 
May,  I  received  this  note  from  the  chief  clerk  of  the  War  Department : 

War  Department, 
Washington  J  3Iay  27,  1857. 
Dear  Sir  :  Ascertaining  that  you  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  papers 
relating  to  the  title  of  certain  property  in  New  York,  purchased  by  this 
department,  should  be  submitted  to  the  United  States  district  attorney 
of  that  State,  I  will  be  obliged  if  you  will  return  them  to  me,  in 
order  that  I  may  give  them  that  direction. 
Yerv  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  R.  DRINKARD,  Chief  Glerh. 

R.  H.  GiLLETT,   Esq., 

Attorney  General's  Office. 

Endorsed  :   Sent. 

The  endorsement  ^^  Sent ''  is  my  mark  upon  the  letter.  Under  the 
date  of  the  fith  of  July,  the  same  title  was  returned  to  the  Attorney 
General,  with  the  same  request  from  Secretary  Floyd,  and  I  wrote  the 
draft  of  the  opinion. 

Question.  You  drew  that  opinion  in  conformity  with  the  request 
from  the  War  Department  of  tlie  Gth  July  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  knew  that  when  the  papers  were  first  sent  to 
the  Attorney  (general  I  raised  objections,  and  either  made  a  minute 
of  them  on  a  piece  oi'  ])aper,  or  noted  them  on  the  abstract  itself. 

Question.  When  did  you  receive  the  full  title  papers? 

Answer.  The  last  time  they  were  sent  they  were  full ;  the  first  time 
there  was  something  wanted  ;  I  do  not  remember  wiiat  it  was. 

Question.  There  was  an  abstract  sent  with  the  papers  the  first  time 
they  were  sent  to  your  office? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  I  suppose  I  have  the  abstract,  for  there  was 
an  abstract  enclosed  to  the  Attorney  General  by  the  district  attorney 
of  New  York,  Mr.  IMcKeon ;  and  there  was  also  one  came  through  the 
War  Department.      In  both  the  letters  sent  by  the  Secretary  of  War 


TESTIMONY.  221 

to  the  Attorney  General  he  speaks  of  enclosing  an  abstract,  and  there 
was  one  besides  which  came  to  our  office,  as  I  suppose,  from  the  district 
attorney  of  New  York.  As  it  was  not  wanted  in  the  case,  I  reserved 
it  in  the  office  to  give  persons  who  had  such  business  to  transact  an 
idea  of  how  the  abstracts  ought  to  be  got  up.  The  first  abstract  and 
papers  came  to  our  office  on  the  23d  of  May,  with  the  letter  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  ;  but  there  being  a  deficiency  in  the  title  they  were 
returned  to  the  War  Department,  and  they  came  back  to  us  com- 
plete, with  the  letter  of  the  6th  of  July,  which  appears  to  have  been 
answered  by  our  office  on  the  7th. 

Question.  Do  you  remember  whether,  when  the  papers  were  first 
sent  to  your  office  on  the  23d  of  May,  there  were  any  deeds  in  con- 
nexion with  the  title  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.     I  remember  there  were  deficiencies. 
Question.  Do  you  remember  who  brought  those  papers  from  the 
War  Department,  or  who  called  at  your  office  in  relation  to  them  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.     The  letter  and  papers  either  came  by  them- 
selves, or  were  brought  by  a  person  interested,  who  asked  speedy 
action  upon  them ;  and,  looking  at  them  then,  I  told  him  they  were 
not  in  a  condition  to  be  passed  upon,  and  I  declined  to  pass  upon  them. 
Question.   Do  you  know  Richard  Schell? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  him,  nor  do  I  know  Mr.  Mather ;  but  the  man 
who  called  upon  me,  if  I  remember  rightly,  was  a  smallish  man,  con- 
siderably past  the  middle  age,  and  my  impression  is  he  had  some 
person  with  him,  whom  he  represented  as  his  counsel. 

The  Chairman.    I  am  speaking  of  the  time  the  papers  were  first 
sent  you  on  the  23d  of  May? 
Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  I  wanted  to  know  who  came  there  with  the  papers? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  raised  objections  then,  and  said  that 
the  papers  ought  to  go  to  the  district  attorney  of  New  York  ;  and,  it 
seems,  that  on  the  27th  of  the  month  that  I  received  a  letter  from  the 
chief  clerk  of  the  War  Department,  asking  me  to  return  the  papers 
to  the  department. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  the  abstract  sent  you  by  the 
War  Department,  on  the  23d  of  May,  was  prepared  by  the  United 
States  district  attorney  of  New  York  ? 
Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Wliat  are  your  impressions  as  to  whether  the  first  ab- 
stract came  from  the  district  artorney  of  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  about  it ;  but  I  infer  from  Mr. 
Drinkard's  letter  that  I  must  have  objected  to  it,  because  the  district 
attorney  had  not  had  it  in  hand.  I  made  the  objection  that  the 
proper  evidence  had  not  come  along  with  it  that  it  had  been  examined 
in  New  York. 

Question.  What  was  the  reason  that  after  these  papers  had  been 
sent  to  the  district  attorney  of  New  York,  they  were  taken  out  of  his 
hands  before  he  had  completed  his  examination? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it.  Perhaps  I  ought  to 
explain  the  mode  of  business  in  relation  to  such  matters.  The  gov- 
ernment employs  whoever  it  chooses  to  examine  the  titles.     It  is  not 


222  TESTIMONY. 

made  the  duty,  "by  law,  of  district  attorneys  to  examine  titles  for  the 
government,  and  the  law  provides  no  compensation  for  it.  In  the 
cases  of  the  aqueduct  and  arsenal  here,  the  War  Department  em- 
ployed a  person  they  had  confidence  in  to  examine  the  titles,  and  that 
person  was  the  representative  of  the  War  Department.  It  is  the 
business  of  the  War  Department,  in  such  cases,  to  get  the  title  up  ; 
and  when  they  send  it  to  our  office,  with  a  bundle  of  facts  on  paper, 
it  has  always  been  treated  as  perfectly  in  shape,  and  the  facts  treated 
as  fact$  presented  by  the  War  Department. 

Question.  Did  Governor  Floyd  ever  speak  to  you  in  relation  to  this 
matter  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  only  known  him,  by  sight,  within  two 
weeks. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Eobert  W.  Latham? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  John  C.  Mather  called  at  your 
office  during  the  months  of  June  or  July,  1857,  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  person  calling  at  our  office  in  re- 
lation to  it,  except  at  the  times  these  two  letters  were  sent  from  the 
War  Department. 

Question.  Wlio  came  then  ? 

Answer.  I  have  described  one  of  the  persons  who  called  the  first 
time,  but  who  the  other  person  was  who  called,  I  do  not  know. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  What  was  their  object  in  calling  ;  to 
expedite  the  matter  ? 

Answer.  That  is  what  they  said.  They  seemed  anxious  that  the 
matter  should  be  taken  up  at  once  and  passed  upon. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Did  any  one  from  the  War  Depart- 
ment accompany  the  persons  who  called? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  When  you  wrote  the  opinion  of  the  7th  of  July,  was 
your  attention  callecl  to  the  fact  that  there  was  a  mortgage  of  $85,000' 
upon  the  property,  and  that  the  government  took  the  property  subject 
to  that  mortgaj^e? 

Answer.  The  abstract  showed  a  mortgage,  and  I  think  the  papers, 
on  the  occasion  I  referred  to,  showed  an  acknowledgment  of  satis- 
faction. 

The  Chairman.  Those  were  old  mortgages  which  had  been  upon 
the  property  ;  but  there  was  a  new  mortgage  upon  it  lor  $85,000' 
which  was  not  satisfied,  and  which  still  remains  upon  it. 

Witness.  The  mortgage  for  $85,000  appears  in  the  abstract ;  and 
the  opinion  would  not  have  been  in  the  form  it  was  unless  they  had 
produced  evidence  that  it  had  been  discharged. 

Question.  Did  you  know  the  amount  of  the  appropriation  for  the 
commencement  of  this  fortification? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  You  merely  passed  upon  the  abstract  which  was  presented 
to  you,  and  the  deed  from  Irving,  who  sold  to  the  government? 

Answer.  In  addition  to  that  we  required  copies  of  all  the  various 
conveyances,  and  they  were  all  examined  to  see  that  they  were  ac- 
knowledged in  due  form. 


TESTIMONY.  223- 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Croswell  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  call  at  your  office  in  relation  to  this  matter? 

Answer.  I  am  not  aware  that  he  did. 

Question.  Suppose  the  fact  had  been  made  known  to  you  that  the 
appropriation  made  for  this  fortification  was  $150,000,  and  that  the 
price  paid  for  the  property  was  $200,000,  a  mortgage  of  $85,000  being 
left  upon  it,  would  you  have  passed  the  title  and  recommended  its  con- 
summation under  such  circumstances  ? 

Answer.  I  should  have  paid  no  attention  to  the  amount  of  the  ap- 
propriation or  the  price  paid.  The  sole  business  of  the  Attorney 
General's  office,  under  the  joint  resolutions  of  1841,  was  as  to  the  va- 
lidity of  the  title  ;  and  if  I  saw  any  incumbrance  on  the  property,  or 
a  possibility  of  an  incumbrance  not  shown  in  the  papers,  I  should 
have  refused  to  pass  the  title.  It  is  no  part  of  the  Attorney  General's 
business  to  look  outside  for  anything,  but  solely  to  direct  his  atten- 
tion to  the  validity  of  the  title. 

Question.  Was  that  title  good,  and  were  there  no  incumbrances 
upon  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  if  they  had  not  furnished  us  with  full  evidences- 
that  there  were  no  incumbrances  upon  the  property,  why  should  we 
have  halted  for  them  to  do  so  ? 

Question,  by  Mr.  Wood.  Is  it  not  usual  or  customary  for  the  gov- 
ernment to  purchase  property  until  all  the  incumbrances  are  removed  ? 

Answer.  1  do  not  know  anything  about  that.  It  is  not  customary 
for  the  Attorney  General  to  certify  the  title  to  be  valid  until  all  things 
prior  to  t)ie  deed  are  cleared  off. 

Question.  The  mark,  ^^Sent,"  upon  this  letter,  dated  May  27,  from 
Mr.  Drinkard,  requesting  the  papers  to  be  returned,  is  yours? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  is  your  impression  as  to  the  time  you  returned 
those  papers  ? 

Answer.  They  were  not  sent  to  New  York  from  our  office,  but  to 
the  War  Department. 

Question.  The  certificate  of  the  clerk  and  the  note  of  Mr.  McKeon 
upon  the  abstract  are  both  dated  the  12th  of  June,  1857.  Do  you 
think  you  received  it  shortly  after  ? 

Answer.  I  presume  it  came  along  after  that,  but  how  long  I  do  not 
know. 

Question.  The  abstract  with  the  date  of  12th  of  June  is  not  the 
abstract  upon  which  the  title  was  passed  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

A.  H.  MrcKLE,  sworn  : 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  John  B.  Haskin. 
Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 
Answer.  I  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
Question.  Where  is  your  country  residence  ? 
Answer.  At  Little  Neck  bay.  Flushing,  Long  Island. 
Question.  How  many  acres  of  land  have  you? 
Answer.  About  110,  or  in  that  neighborhood. 


224  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Were  you  called  upon  during  the  year  1857  to  certify  in 
any  manner  as  to  the  value  of  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  purchased 
by  the  government  for  fortification  purposes,  and  if  so,  by  whom,  and 
when? 

Answer.  The  dates  I  do  not  recollect,  but  I  was  called  upon  by  Mr. 
Augustus  Schell  and  Isaac  Fowler. 

Question.  State  the  conversation  which  then  occurred  between  you 
in  relation  to  the  subject? 

Answer.  Mr.  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler  came  into  my  store  and  asked 
me  whether  I  could  give  any  estimate  of  the  value  of  that  property, 
and  I  told  them  that  I  could  put  my  value  upon  it,  but  could  not  give 
the  value  which  the  owner  put  upon  it. 

Question.   Which  of  the  two  desired  this  information  ? 
Answer.   Mr.  Schell.  He  handed  me  a  letter  and  asked  me  whether 
I  could  sit!:n  it.  I  read  it  over  and  told  him  no  ;  because  I  thought  the 
value-  I  forget  the  purport  of  the  letter  now,  but  it  was  such  a  letter 
containing  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  property. 
Question.  Who  was  the  letter  written  by? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  ;  Schell  handed  it  to  me  and  I  declined 
signing  it,  but  told  him  I  would  give  him  a  letter,  which  1  did. 
I  suppose  you  have  a  copy  of  it. 

Question.  You  only  gave  one  letter? 
Answer.   Yes,  sir 

Question.  In  the  letter  you  gave  did  you  fix  upon  any  sum  as  the 
value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  None  whatever.  I  think  the  purport  of  the  letter  was 
that  it  was  a  valuable  point  of  land  for  villa  sites,  having  a  beautiful 
location  ;  that  if  cut  up  in  villa  sites  of  five  or  ten  acres,  it  was  a 
most  desirable  place  lor  citizens  of  New  York  who  wished  a  place 
within  a  few  minutes'  run  of  the  city. 

Question.   Do  you  recollect  the  value  of  the  property  specified  in 
the  letter  which  Schcil  requested  you  to  sign? 
Answer.  I  do  not. 
Question.   Can  you  not  recall  it  ? 

Ansvver.  No,  sir.  I  think  the  point  they  wanted  to  get  at  was 
conijarison.  They  wanted  to  know  if  1  thought  that  point  was  worth 
more  monev  per  acre  than  a  certain  point  below,  which  belonged  to 
Mr.  Grinnell.  I  told  them  that  if  I  was  going  to  locate  for  a  sum- 
mer's residence  1  would  prefer  Wilkins'  Point  to  the  point  which  Mr. 
Orinnell  lived  upon.  They  said  that  Mr.  Grinnell  was  asking  $3,000 
an  acre,  and  I  do  not  know  but  that  I  re})lifnl  that  I  did  not  think 
that,  lie  could  anywhere  find  a  man  fool  enouji^h  to  give  that. 

Question.  To  the  best  of  your  recollecting,  was  not  the  value  at 
which  the  whole  property  was  valued  $200,000  in  the  letter  you  were 
requested  to  sign  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect.  The  sum  total  was  not  down,  but  it 
was  so  much  per  acre. 

(Question.  (Jan  you  not  recollect  how  much  per  acre  it  was  valued  at 
within  one  hundred  dollars? 

Answer  No,  sir,  i  cannot ;  I  only  glanced  over  the  letter  ;  did  not 
agree  with  it,  and  told  them  1  could  not  sign  it. 


TESTIMONY.  225 

Question.  The  letter  you  gave  merely  certified  to  the  beautiful  loca- 
tion of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  did  not  specify  any  value? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  not  Schell  or  Fowler  at  that  interview  specify  any 
value  per  acre  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  you  declined  to  sign  the  letter  which  Schell  requested 
you  to  sign,  fixing  a  valuation  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  decline  signing  it  because  you  thought  the  price 
placed  upon  the  property  was  too  high  ? 

Answer.  Not  exactly  on  that  account,  but  because  I  thought  that 
value  was  according  to  the  estimate  of  the  seller  and  buyer,  that 
whatever  a  man  could  get  for  his  property,  and  whatever  the  buyer 
would  give,  was  the  value  ;  but  I  could  not  say  what  that  value  was. 

Question.  What  did  you  pay  for  your  land? 

Answer.  I  paid,  I  think,  $83  an  acre,  but  I  bought  my  land  under 
peculiar  circumstances. 

Question.  When  did  you  purchase  your  land? 

Answer.  Seven  or  eight  years  ago,  but  I  have  bought  another  piece 
of  land  adjoining  it  recently. 

Question.  What  did  you  pay  for  that? 

Answer.  I  paid  for  twelve  acres,  $1,290. 

Question.   Has  that  a  water  front? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Your  idea  of  the  value  of  property  being  fixed  by  the 
buyer  and  seller  is  not  such  an  idea  as  you  would  apply  if  you  were 
called  upon  to  appraise  the  value  of  a  piece  of  property  ? 

Answer.  If  I  was  called  upon  to  appraise  the  value  of  property,  I 
would  fix  the  price  at  what  1  thought  was  the  legitimate  value  of  the 
property. 

Question.  You  are  intimate  with  the  property  all  around  Wilkins' 
Point  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  my  father-in-law  had  charge  of  the  property 
some  forty  years  ago. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  the  property  was  iu  the  market 
for  sale  before  the  government  purchased  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  it  was  in  the  market.  Mr.  Wissman  has  ofi'ered 
it  for  sale. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  price  he  asked  for  it  before  it  was  sold 
to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  forget  now  whether  he  wanted  to  sell  the  whole.  I  fre- 
quently had  conversations  with  him  about  it.  I  think  he  has  offered 
it  for  less  than  $100,000,  or  for  $100,000  ;  but  whether  a  part  or  the 
whole  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  If  you  had  been  called  upon  in  March,  1857,  to  appraise 
the  value  of  the  property,  what  would  you  have  valued  it  at,  from 
your  knowledge  of  it? 

Answer.  I  can  hardly  say  what  I  would  have  appraised  it  at.     If 

H.  Rep.  Cora.  549 15 


226  TESTIMONY. 

you  ask  me  what  I  would  have  given  for  it  if  I  wanted  it  for  farming 
or  speculative  purposes,  I  can  tell  you. 

Question.  Well,  what  would  you  have  been  willing  to  give  for  the 
property  for  farming  or  speculative  purposes  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think,  if  I  was  going  to  operate  there,  I  would 
give  over  $1,000  an  acre  for  it ;  I  would  not  have  given  over  that. 

Question.  Would  you  have  considered  that  a  high  or  low  price? 

Answer.  I  would  have  considered,  if  I  wanted  it  for  myself,  that  it 
was  a  high  price. 

Question.  Suppose  you  had  been  selected  by  the  government,  in 
April,  1857,  to  appraise  the  value  of  the  property  as  between  Mr. 
Wissman  or  Mr.  Irving,  the  owner  and  the  government,  what  would 
you  have  certified  the  value  of  the  property  to  be  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  would  have  valued  it  at  over  $1,000  an 
acre. 

Question.  Including  improvements? 

Answer.  Including  everything. 

Question.  Are  the  improvements  on  it  good  or  bad  ? 

Answer.  The  buildings  are  good.  They  are  new  buildings,  fences, 
and  outhouses  ;  but  the  land  would  require  a  great  deal  of  resuscita- 
tion to  make  it  all  good  ;  it  is  like  all  farms.  It  requires  a  great  deal 
of  time  and  money  to  resuscitate  a  farm.  I  have  had  my  farm  seven 
years,  and  have  constantly  been  improving  it,  but  it  is  not  entirely 
resuscitated  yet. 

Question.  Is  your  farm  more  valuable  than  this? 

Answer.  I  should  judge  not  for  a  country  seat,  because  the  point 
would  be  preferable  ;  but  I  would  prefer  mine  for  myself  to  live  on. 

Question.  Did  you  state  to  Schell  and  Fowler  that  you  did  not  con- 
sider this  property  worth  over  $1,000  an  acre? 

Answer.  I  might  have  stated  that  it  was  worth  what  they  could 
get  for  it. 

Question.  In  the  interview  had  you  much  conversation  with  him  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  much. 

Question.  Who  was  present  beside  Schell,  Fowler  and  yourself? 

Answer.  There  were  none  present  except  Mr.  Fowler.  Mr.  Schell, 
myself  and  my  book-keeper,  who  wrote  the  letter  as  I  dictated  it. 

Question.  You  remarked  that  Mr.  Grinnell  asked  too  much  for  the 
pro[)erty  ? 

Aijswer.  That  is  what  I  heard. 

Question.  He  asked  $3,000  an  acre? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Where  is  his  property  located  ? 

Answer,  The  position  is  on  the  bay  as  the  fort  is,  only  it  is  what 
we  would  term  a  southern  ])()int  ;  an  inland  point. 

Question.  You  regarded  that  price  too  high? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   How  much  too  high? 

Answer.  I  would  not  have  given  half  of  that  if  I  had  been  going 
to  buy  it.  I  would  give  more  for  Wilkins'  Point,  as  a  place  of  resi- 
dence, tlian  Grinnell's. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  It  is  more  desirable  ? 


I 


TESTIMONY.  227 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  because  it  has  a  view  up  the  Sound,  down  the 
river,  and  up  the  bay  ;  it  is  a  complete  point ;  whilst  Grinnell's  is 
below,  and  from  it  you  can  only  have  a  glimpse  of  the  Sound  upwards 
and  towards  Hell  Gate  to  the  south. 

Question.  Has  he  sold  any  of  his  land  at  that  price? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  At  what  price  has  he  sold  any  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  heard  of  his  selling  any. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Is  not  this  $3,000  an  acre  a  fancy 
price  which  he  puts  upon  his  land  ? 

Answer.  I  should  judge  it  was  a  fancy  price. 

Question.  Have  you  understood  that  he  has  it  for  sale? 

Answer.  I  understand  that  he  has  it  for  sale  now. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that  he  had  it  for  sale  in  March, 
1857? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  had  or  not. 

Question.  How  much  nearer  New  York  is  it  than  Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.  There  would  not  be  ten  minutes  difference. 

Question.  Is  it  one  or  two  miles  nearer  ? 

Answer.  I  should  judge  it  was  not  over  a  mile. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  acres  there  are  in  this  plat? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Is  it  nearer  the  steamboat  landing  than  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  I  think  the  steamboat  landing  is  half  way  between  the 
two. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  You  say  he  has  the  property  in  the 
market  now  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Does  he  still  hold  it  at  §3,000  an  acre? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Are  there  any  improvements  on  it  ? 

Answer.  I  really  forget ;    I  never  was  on  Mr.  Grinnell's  Point. 

Augustus  Scuell  sworn  : 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  J.  B.  Haskin. 

Question.  You  are  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York? 

Answer.  I  now  hold  that  office. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  discharging  the  duties  of  it  ? 

Answer.  Since  the  1st  of  July,  1857. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  purchased 
by  the  government  in  1857  for  fortification  purposes  ? 

Answer.  I  know  the  property. 

Question.  State  to  the  committee  all  you  know  in  relation  to  the 
facts  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  this 
property  by  the  government  in  1857. 

Answer.  I  received  a  communication  from  the  War  Department, 
some  time  in  the  spring  of  1857,  requesting  me,  in  connexion  with 
Mr.  Isaac  V.  Fowler,  of  New  York,  to  examine  as  to  the  value  of  the 
property  at  Wilkins'  Point,  and  report  to  the  department. 

[Here  a  copy  of  the  letter  dated  Washington,  April  13,  1857,  from 


228  TESTIMONY. 

John  B.  Floyd,  Secretary  of  War,  to  Augustus  Scliell,  which  copy- 
appears  iu  the  evidence  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  was  shown  witness, 
and  he  recognized  it  as  a  copy  of  the  letter  sent  him.] 

Question.  When  did  you  receive  that  letter  ? 

Answer.  It  must  have  been  a  few  days  after  the  13th  of  April,  the 
date  of  the  letter.  On  its  receipt  I  notified  Mr.  Fowler  that  I  had  re- 
ceived such  a  communication,  and  desired  him  to  call  at  my  office, 
where  I  showed  it  to  him. 

Question.  What  did  you  do  then  ? 

Answer.  A  few  days  afterwards  we  made  arrangements  by  which 
we  were  to  go  and  look  at  it,  which  we  did.  I  do  not  recollect  the 
day  of  the  month  or  the  time  we  went  to  the  ground,  but  we  spent  a 
part  of  a  day  there  examining  the  locality. 

Question.  Who  did  you  meet  there  ? 

Answer.  We  went  in  the  boat  from  New  York  to  Flushings  and 
at  the  landing  we  met  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  and  another  gentle- 
man to  whom  I  was  introduced  as  Mr.  Irving. 

Question.  Then  you  went  with  them  in  a  carriage  to  the  grounds  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  met  another  gentleman  on  the  property  to 
whom  I  was  introduced  as  Mr.  Wissman  ;  we  spent  two  or  three 
hours  on  the  grounds. 

Question.  l)id  you  understand  that  Mr.  Wissman  was  the  owner  of 
the  property  at  that  time  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  know  who  was  the  owner. 

Question.  You  returned  to  the  city  after  examining  the  property? 

Answer,  Mr.  Fowler  and  Mr.  Wetmore  returned  with  me. 

[Here  a  copy  of  a  letter  dated  New  York,  April  24,  1857^  from 
Augustus  Schell  and  Isaac  V.  l^'owler  to  Hon.  John  B.  Floyd,  Secre- 
tary of  War,  (which  copy  is  published  in  the  evidence  of  Hon.  John 
B.  Floyd,)  was  shown  witness,  and  he  recognized  it  as  a  copy  of  the 
report  he  made  the  War  Department.] 

Question.  Who  drew  the  original  of  that  paper? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  Of  what  persons  did  you  inquire  as  to  the  value  of  the 
property  ? 

Answer.  So  far  as  I  now  recollect,  I  inquired  of  Mr.  John  Cryder, 
Henry  Grinnell,  A.  H.  Mickle,  A.  J.  Bleecker,  and  others,  whose 
names  I  cannot  now  recall. 

Question.  What  did  Mr.  Bleecker  state  was  the  value  of  the  pro- 
perty, in  his  judgment  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  declined  to  give  the  sum. 

Question.  Were  those  the  only  persons  you  inquired  the  value  of 
the  property  from  ? 

Answer.  All  I  remember. 

Question.  When  did  you  send  that  communication  to  Washington? 

Answer.   I  j)reKume  on  tlie  day  of  its  date,  or  the  next  day. 

Question.  What  interest  had  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in  this 
matter  ? 

Answer.  None  that  I  know  of. 

Question.    Do    you    remember   Prosper    M.    Wetmore   and    your 


TESTIMONY.  229 

brother  Eichard  inquiring  on  tlie  day  tliat  letter  was  written  whether 
you  had  sent  it  or  not  ? 

Answer.  Xo,  sir  ;  I  do  not  remember. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  the  payment  was  made  by  the  govern- 
ment for  the  purchase  of  that  property  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  have  any  conversations 
with  you  before  you  sent  this  letter  to  the  War  Department  in  relation 
to  the  value  of  this  property? 

Answer.  I  think  not;  I  never  had  any  conversations  with  him  in 
reference  to  its  value. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  R.  W.  Latham  ever  have  any  conversations 
with  you  previous  to  this  in  relation  to  the  matter  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  take  any  interest  in  it  ? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  him  in  connexion  with  it. 

Question.  What  interest  had  your  brother  Kichard  in  connexion 
with  it  ? 

Answer.  None  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Had  you  any  interest  in  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  of  no  kind.  I  have  detailed  to  you  all  that  I 
ever  had  to  do  with  it  in  any  way. 

Question.  Did  not  your  brother  Richard  inform  you  that  he  ad- 
vanced money  to  purchase  this  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  did  not. 

Question.  And  did  you  not  know  from  him  that  he  had  any  interest 
in  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  he  received  any  payment  made  by 
the  government  on  account  of  this  purchase  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not. 

Question.  Have  you  any  interest  with  your  brother? 

Answer.  None  at  all. 

Question.  What  is  his  occupation? 

Answer.  It  is  that  of  a  broker  and  banker.  My  occupation,  at  the 
time,  was  that  of  a  lawyer. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  Your  brother  loans  money? 

Answer.  I  believe  so. 

Question.   His  negotiations  are  very  large? 

Answer.  Very  large  ;  extending  to  millions  of  dollars,  at  times,  I 
have  heard. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  You  have  no  interest  together  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  were  collector  then? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  my  appointment  took  place  in  March,  but  my 
commission  is  dated  the  14th  of  May. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  day  you  went  down  to  this  property 
with  Mr.  Fowler  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  You  went  down  at  the  request  of  the 
Secretary  of  War  ? 


230  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  formed  your  judgment  upon  the  information  you  got 
from  what  you  supposed  disinterested  parties  ? 

Answer.  Entirely  so. 

Question.  You  felt  anxious  to  protect  the  government  from  extor* 
tion  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  they  expressed  a  desire  that  care  should  be  take.i 
in  the  investigation. 

Question.  And  this  letter  that  you  wrote  the  War  Department  was 
based  upon  the  investigations  you  made  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Of  your  own  knowledge  you  were  not 
familiar  with  the  value  of  the  property? 

Answer.  My  knowledge  was  entirely  derived  from  these  persons. 

Question.  And  you  were  induced  to  believe  tUat  an  exorbitant  price 
was  not  asked  for  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  I  have  had  no  reason  to  change  my  opinion 
since. 

Question.  Had  you  any  interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War  before 
he  wrote  you  the  letter  in  reference  to  this  subject  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  never  had  any  other  communication  with 
the  Secretary  in  relation  to  it  than  the  letter  he  wrote  me  and  the 
reply  I  sent.  That  is  all  I  had  to  do  with  the  matter,  directly  or  in- 
directly. 

Question.  You  say  you  called  on  A.  H.  Mickle.  What  was  his 
judgment  in  relation  to  the  value  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  he  gave  a  sum  certain  or  not. 
He  said  that  he  did  not  know  much  about  the  value  of  property  along 
the  shore  ;  that  his  property  lay  further  back.  I  asked  him  com- 
paratively, and  he  said  he  thought  it  was  worth  as  much  as  any  land 
along  the  shore  ;  but  I  do  not  recollect  that  he  fixed  upon  any  sum 
per  acre. 

Question.  What  was  Cryder's  estimate? 

Answer.  Cryder  fixed  a  certain  sum  ;  I  think  it  was  $1,100  an 
acre,  taking  the  land  and  improvements  together,  for  his  own  pro- 
perty ;  and  he  said  he  did  not  think  that  this  other  point  was  worth  as 
much. 

Question.  How  came  you  to  be  one  of  the  appraisers  for  this  pro- 
l)erty  ?     At  whose  request  were  you  appointed  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  The  first  intimation  I  had  of  it  was  the 
receipt  of  the  communication  from  the  War  Department. 

Question.  You  say,  in  your  reply  to  the  War  Department,  that  you 
had  procured  the  certificate  of  auctioneers;  did  you  or  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore  procure  it? 

Answer.  I  think  Wetmore  sent  it  to  me. 

Wednesday,  March  10,  1858. 

Wm.  C.  Wetmore,  afiirmed : 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  What  is  your  business,  and  where  do 
vou  reside  ? 


I'ESTIMONY.  231 

Answer.  I  am  a  lawyer,  and  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Question.  Did  you  conduct  the  conveyance  of  the  property  at  Wil- 
kins'  Point  from  Irving  to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  was  employed  by  Mr.  Irving  to  investigate  the  title  for 
purchase,  and  afterwards  I  made  the  investigation  for  the  govern- 
ment, I  made  the  abstract  of  title  for  the  government  also.  I  was 
not  employed  by  the  government,  but  the  abstract  I  made  it  adopted. 

Question.  Who  employed  you? 

Answer.   George  Irving, 

Question.  When  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  as  f^r  back  as  March,  1857,  a  long  time 
before  it  was  closed.  In  the  first  place,  I  made  a  full  investigation 
for  Irving,  not  knowing  anything  of  the  government.  Then  the 
papers  went  out  of  my  hands.  The  first  agreement  Irvino;  made  was, 
if  I  recollect  rightly,  made  with  a  man  by  the  name  of  Wissman.  I 
found  that  agreement  defective  and  made  a  new  one,  I  think,  with  a 
Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn. 

Question.  Who  requested  you  to  search  the  title  on  behalf  of  the 
government  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Irving.     I  cannot  state  why  it  was  done. 

Question.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  or  write  to  the  Attorney 
General  on  the  subject? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  It  was  entirely  at  Irving's  request? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Were  you  ever  called  on  by  any  other  parties  except  Ir- 
ving in  relation  to  this  matter  ? 

Answer.  I  saw,  I  think,  a  number  of  people  during  the  progress  of 
my  examination.  My  recollection  is  this  :  Irving  came  to  me,  and 
asked  me  to  investigate  the  title.  That  was  as  far  back  as  March.  I 
investigated  the  title  and  found  it  satisfactory'  ;  at  the  end  of  my  in- 
vestigation, a  certain  sum  had  to  be  paid  down,  to  bind  the  contract. 
That  is  the  first  interview  that  I  had  with  these  other  parties.  I  saw 
Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn  and  Mr.  Wissraan,  and  their  lawyers. 

Question.  Were  you  called  on  in  relation  to  this  transaction  by  Mr. 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  that  I  ever  saw  him  on  the  subject. 

Question.  Were  you  ever  called  on  by  Mr.  Richard  8chell,  or  have 
any  communication  with  him  on  the  subject? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  had  several  interviews  with  him. 

Question.   State  one  of  them? 

Answer.  If  I  recollect  aright  there  was  a  payment  made  in  the  first 
contract  which  Mr.  Weissman  signed,  and  which  Mr.  Van  Blanken- 
steyn did  not  sign.  When  it  came  into  my  hands,  and  the  payment 
came  to  be  made,  of  which  I  had  the  control,  I  took  a  receipt  from 
Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn  and  made  him  sign  the  contract.  The  check 
for  that  money  was  advanced  to  me,  and  I  paid  it  myself. 

Question.   By  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  The  check  of  $9,000  was  handed  to  me  by  Mr.  Schell,  or 
I  was  present  when  it  was  handed  over.  It  must  have  been  handed 
to  me,  as  I  have  no  recollection  of  Schell  being  present  at  any  of  the 


232  TESTIMONY. 

interviews  between  me  and  these  parties.  I  think  I  acted  in  the 
matter  alone. 

Question.  Whose  check  was  the  $9,000  for? 

Answer.  My  impression  is  that  it  was  Mr.  Schell  s  check. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  when  it  was  given  ? 

Answer.  28th  of  April.  It  must  have  been  that  day.  I  cannot 
tell  exactly,  because  I  have  not  the  papers  with  me.  If  I  had  thought 
of  it  I  might  have  brought  the  contracts  along  with  me. 

Question.  Were  mortgages  paid  subsequently? 

Answer.  This  property  had  two  mortgages  on  it.  They  were  held 
by  Charles  Lowrie  and  an  old  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Willetts.  At 
the  time  of  the  investigation  these  two  mortgages  were  on  the  pro- 
perty. They  were  not  paid  until  after  Irving  ])urchased  the  property. 
They  were  not  paid  until  after  I  had  made  my  investigation  for  the 
government.  When  I  was  coming  on  here  to  Wasliington  to  close 
with  the  government,  I  sent  for  those  people  to  come  and  receive 
their  money,  and  clear  the  record.  Willetts  and  Lowrie  met  me  at 
Owen  &  Vose's  office.  This,  perhaps,  must  have  been  ten  days, 
or  perhaps  more,  before  I  came  here.  A  controversy  arose  be- 
tween the  parties  respecting  the  amount  they  were  to  receive.  The 
mortgages  were  not  due,  and  they  refused  to  receive  their  money  un- 
less a  year's  interest,  or  more,  was  advanced.  I  insisted  on  paying 
for  the  mortgages,  and  making  a  clear  record.  I  left  for  them  to  con- 
sider about  it ;  but  instead  of  coming  to  me,  they  went  home.  This 
went  on  until  the  Ist  of  July,  perhaps.  I  think  it  was  on  the  2d  of 
July  that  they  came  into  town  offering  to  close  on  receiving  a  particu- 
lar sum  of  money,  which  I  was  prepared  to  pay.  When  we  met 
they  flew  from  that  bargain,  and  asked  more  money.  They  asked 
a  further  advance  of  interest  to  induce  them  to  give  up  the  mort- 
gages. A  little  harsh  feeling  existed  between  the  parties.  I  told 
them  that  they  must  settle  the  difficulty  between  themselves.  They 
gaid  that  they  would  go  and  take  their  dinner,  but  they  took  the  Flush- 
ing boat  and  went  home.  This  was  on  the  2d  of  July,  and  on  the 
4th  I  was  to  come  here.  On  the  afternoon  of  the  3d  I  sent  for  them 
to  come  back.  When  I  found  that  they  would  not  come  I  went  to  Flush- 
ing, and  there  })aid  them  off,  taking  satislaction  pieces,  as  I  knew 
that  the  Attorney  General  would  require  to  liave  evidence  that  these 
mortgages  were  satisfied  ;  instead  of  bringing  on  certificates,  I  brought 
on  the  satisfaction  pieces  themselves.  When  I  delivered  u})  the  title 
I  gave  them  to  the  Attorney  G(  neral,  and  when  he  put  liis  deed  on 
record  he  also  ])ut  these  on  record.  It  was  the  4th  clay  of  July  I  came 
here,  and  on  the  Gth  or  7th  that  I  closed  the  matter.  The  4th  of  July 
was  on  Saturday,  and  I  think  that  it  was  on  Tuesday  or  Wednesday 
of  the  following  week  that  I  settled  it. 

Question.  The  order  for  payment  from  the  government  was  on  the 
8th  of  July? 

Answer.  It  may  have  been  ;  I  do  not  recollect ;  it  may  luive  been 
dated  ahead  ;  I  came  on  the  4th,  and  staid  until  the  next  Wednesday 
or  Thursday  ;  I  cannot  tell  which. 

Question.  There  is  a  certified  copy  of  a  deed  from  Wissman  to  Ir- 
ving ;  when  was  that  delivered? 


TESTIMONY.  233 

Answer,  I  think  that  it  was  delivered  to  him  at  the  same  time  that 
all  the  deeds  were  delivered  to  me  ;  I  think  that  a'l  the  papers  were 
put  into  my  hands  at  once ;  I  was  to  have  all  the  money,  and  I  was 
to  close  the  matter  up. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  interview  with  the  United  States  dis- 
trict attorney  at  New  York,  Mr.  McKeon,  on  the  subject  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  Why  was  it  that  he  did  not  search  the  title  to  these 
premises  ? 

Answer.  He  told  me  that  he  had. 

Question.  Did  he  pass  the  title  to  your  knowledge? 

Answer.  He  told  me  that  he  had,  while  he  did  not  give  us  any  evi- 
dence of  that  fact. 

I  want  to  explain  the  Van  Blankensteyn  mortgage.  I  investigated 
this  title,  as  I  have  said,  for  George  Irving,  and  passed  the  title.  My 
impression  is  that  was  some  time  in  March  or  April.  He  represented 
to  me  that  he  had  bought  the  title,  and  wanted  me  to  pass  it.  After 
I  passed  it,  I  made  an  abstract,  and  had  a  map  made  of  the  whole 
property.  Mr.  Irving  told  me  that  he  was  about  to  sell  that  property 
to  the  government.  He  wished  me  to  put  my  abstract,  searches,  and 
my  map,  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  McKeon.  I  did  put  them  there.  I  took 
them  there  myself,  and  gave  them  into  Mr.  McKeon's  hands.  I  asked 
him  whether  he  had  been  notified  that  the  government  had  purchased 
that  piece  of  property. 

He  told  me  that  a  gentleman  from  Washington  had  been  with  him 
on  the  subject — a  gentleman  connected  with  the  department.  He  did 
not  state  who  it  was.  I  left  the  papers  with  him.  I  called  on  him 
several  times  in  relation  to  it.  He  left  it  with  some  gentleman  out  of 
his  office  to  make  a  search.  I  followed  this  thing  up  for  some  time, 
some  weeks,  and  at  last  Mr.  Irving  came  to  me  and  told  me  that  it 
was  delayed  very  much. 

This  must  have  been  in  May,  or  may  be  June.  I  then  made  a 
new  abstract  and  full  searches,  which  the  government  have  got.  I 
accomplished  this  in  a  few  days,  because  I  had  ])revious  notes  and  be- 
cause I  knew  what  to  do,  having  got  all  my  papers  ready.  Mr.  Irving 
said  that  he  wanted  me  to  go  to  Washington  and  show  these  papers 
to  the  Attorney  General.  I  went  to  Mr.  McKeon's  office,  and  asked 
him  what  had  become  of  the  map,  abstract,  papers,  &c.  I  think  he 
told  me  that  Mr.  Joachimsen  had  either  gone  to  Washington  with  them, 
or  sent  them,  or  was  going  with  them.  I  told  him  that  I  was  going 
to  Washington  on  that  very  business.  On  the  evening  of  the  4th  of 
July  I  started. 

I  went  to  the  Secretary  of  War  and  he  referred  them  to  the  Attor- 
ney General.  I  went  there  and  told  the  Attorney  General  what  pa- 
pers I  nad  got.  We  waited  for  Mr.  Joachimsen  to  come  on  with  his 
papers.  Not  coming,  I  telegraphed  to  know  what  had  become  of 
them.  Mr.  McKeon  telegraphed  back  that  Mr.  Joachimsen  had  gone 
to  Newport,  Providence,  or  somewhere  else,  instead  of  coming  to 
Washington,  and  would  not  return  for  two  or  three  days.  I  stated 
these  facts  to  Mr.  Gillett  and  to  the  Attorney  General.  They  said 
that  it  was  not  necessary  to  have  Mr.  McKeon's  certificate,  if  the  ab- 


234  TESTIMONY. 

stract  was  all  straight,  and  there  was  a  certificate  of  a  lawyer,  who 
was  coDsidered  a  competent  man  for  that  business,  and  they  said  that 
they  would  take  the  papers  and  see  whether  the  title  was  good. 
Mr.  Gillett  took  my  papers  and  went  over  the  whole  matter.  Next 
morning  he  told  me  that  it  was  perfectly  satisfactory.  The  papers 
went  before  the  Attorney  General,  who  in  a  day  or  two  gave  his  cer- 
tificate that  the  title  was  good.  The  8th  day  of  July  was  probably 
the  day  it  was  closed.  When  those  papers  were  delivered  all  the 
money  had  been  paid  to  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn,  and  all  the  money 
had  been  paid  on  these  mortgages  except  $85,000.  Mr.  Irving  bought 
this  property  under  an  agreement  that  he  should  give  back  a  mort- 
gage for  $85,000  to  Van  i31ankensteyn.  The  balance  was  to  be  paid 
in  cash.  All  that  bahmce  had  been  paid  to  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn, 
but  this  $15,500  ;  according  to  my  understanding  a  mortgage  was 
written  for  that  amount. 

This  mortgage  to  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn  was  a  memorandum  of 
how  much  was  due  him.  I  was  responsible  to  him  that  he  should 
have  that  money  under  any  circumstances.  I  was  to  return  from 
Washington  and  pay  him.  It  was  neither  his  nor  my  intention  that 
that  mortgage  should  go  upon  record.  Mr.  Vose  improperly,  in  my 
judgment,  sent  it  to  be  recorded.  The  moment  I  got  back  I  paid  the 
mortgage  ofi\ 

Question.  The  Lowrie  and  Willett  mortgages  were  paid  off" before? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  Mr.  Schell  advanced  me  the  money  with  which 
I  paid  them  off. 

Question.  The  subsequent  mortgage  to  Van  Blankensteyn  of 
$15,500  you  paid  off  from  the  funds  you  had  received. 

Answer.  We  did  not  receive  the  money  here.  Unfortunately,  we 
happened  to  fall  on  the  day  when  all  of  the  ofiices  here  were  closed  be- 
cause of  the  death  of  Governor  Marcy.  Of  course  I  had  a  great  deal 
of  trouble  in  getting  my  papers  through  that  day.  I  got  them 
through,  but  I  had  to  take  a  draft  on  New  York.  It  was  drawn  on  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Gillmore.  He  gave  a  draft  on  Mr.  Cisco.  Mr. 
Irving  got  the  draft  from  Mr.  Gillmore. 

Question.   Do  you  know  when  it  was  taken  to  him  by  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  Irving  told  me  that  he  did;  but  I  don't  remember  the 
precise  time.  He  brout^ht  back  the  draft  on  Mr.  Cisco,  and  gave  it  to 
Mr.  Bichard  Schell.  Schell  gave  me  his  check  for  the  amount  paid 
to  Van  Blankensteyn,  and  a  check  for  my  own  services. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  on  the  sub- 
ject? 

Answer.   I  do  not  recollect  that  he  had  anything  to  do  with  it. 

Question.   Did  Mr.  Scliell  call  on  you  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  Only  once,  when  this  $9,000  was  advanced,  for  wdiich  he 
gave  me  his  check.  He  afterwards  urged  me  to  come  here,  stating  as 
his  reason  that  he  had  advanced  that  money,  and  was  afraid  he  might 
loso  it. 

Question.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Latham  in  regard  to  the  transaction? 

Answer.   I  do  not  know  such  a  man. 

Question.  When  you  were  here  in  July  did  you  see  the  Secretary 
of  War  ? 


TESTIMONY.  235 

Answer.  I  got  here  on  the  4th  of  July,  I  think,  and  I  think  that  I 
saw  him  on  Monday.  I  saw  him  several  times.  I  think  that  I  had 
two  interviews  with  him.     I  was  at  his  office  several  times. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  numher  of  acres  in  this  tract? 

Answer.  I  think  the  government  purchased  110  acres. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  Do  you  know  the  value  of  this  property 
other  than  what  you  have  heard? 

Answer.  I  have  taken  a  little  trouble  to  ascertain  its  value.  I  had 
a  client,  now  dead,  who  owned  a  farm  this  side  of  it  about  two  miles, 
and  upon  the  Sound.  It  is  valued  at  §1,500  an  acre,  though  not  to  be 
compared  with  the  property  on  Willett's  Point. 

Question.  What  does  Krider  ask  for  his  place? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  suppose  you  could  get  it  for  less 
than  $3,000  an  acre. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  You  referred  to  old  Capt.  Smith's  prop- 
erty ;  what  improvements  are  on  it  ? 

Answer.  There  is  a  boarding  house  there.  It  is  valued  by  those 
who  now  hold  it  at  $1,500  an  acre. 

Question.  How  far  from  Willett's  Point  is  it  ? 

Answer.  I  should  not  suppose  more  than  a  few  miles. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  this  Willett's  Point  property  was 
in  the  market  for  several  years  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not ;  I  wish  I  had  I  would  have  bought  it  ;  I  heard 
that  the  government  was  going  to  buy  it. 

Question.  Have  you  been  on  this  property? 

Answer.  I  have.  It  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  points  on  Long 
Island  Sound. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  How  far  is  it  from  this  place  of  Smith's? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  exactly,  but  not  more  than  two  or  three 
miles. 

Question.  Up  or  down  the  Sound  ? 

Answer.  Down  the  Sound. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Does  not  property  increase  in  value  as 
your  near  the  city  ? 

Answer.  Some  does,  and  some  does  not.  These  locations  on  the 
Sound  are  valuable  as  sites  for  count-ry  residences.  This  Willett's 
Point  has  certainly  one  of  the  finest  views  on  Long  Island  Sound. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hall.  Has  it  any  value  from  the  depth  of  water  in 
front  of  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  whether  any  other  piece  of 
property  has  been  sold  there  within  two  years. 

Answer.  I  have  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  Do  you  know  what  valuation  the  as- 
sessors put  on  that  property  ? 

Answer.  I  know  a  good  deal  about  the  assessors'  valuation  in  the 
city  and  out  of  the  city,  too.  Take  our  city  assessors,  and  they  value  our 
property  in  some  parts  pretty  nearly  as  much  as  it  is  worth.  I,  with 
others,  have  been  laboring  to  put  the  valuation  down  and  the  per 
centage  up.  By  that  means  we  should  save  a  great  deal  of  money  in 
New  York.     The  country  people  put  their  valuation  down,  and  that 


236  TESTIMONY. 

throws  a  large  proportion  of  the  expenses  of  the  State  upon  the  city. 
In  Westchester  county  a  low  valuation  is  put  on  property.  The  gen- 
eral rule  is  to  value  the  lands  there  as  farming  lands — what  they 
would  produce  as  farms.  If  a  piece  of  property  is  worth  §25,000,  I 
presume  the  assessors  will  not  assess  it  at  more  than  §5,000.  I  do 
not  know  anything  about  the  assessments  in  the  town  of  Flushing  ; 
I  only  speak  generally.  I  never  pay  any  sort  of  respect  to  the  asses- 
sors' valuation  in  New  York  city. 

Wednesday,  April  28,  1858. 

William  C.  Wetmore  recalled. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  John  B.  Haskin. 

Question.  At  what  time  was  the  draft  of  the  War  Department,  in 
payment  of  this  purchase  of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property,  paid  in  New 
York  ? 

Answer.  According  to  my  present  recollection  we  left  here  either 
on  Wednesday  or  Thursday  in  July,  the  7th  or  8th,  and  I  think  the 
draft  must  have  been  paid  on  the  9th  or  10th  of  July. 

Question.  Who  received  the  money  for  that  draft  ? 

Answer.  I  only  know  that  from  having  heard  I  was  to  have  re- 
ceived the  money  ;  but  Mr.  Irving  took  the  draft,  and  his  reason  for 
doing  so  was  that  it  had  to  be  endorsed  by  Gillmore,  and  they  took  it 
to  him  to  have  him  endorse  it  ;  I  think  George  Irving  then  endorsed 
it  to  Schell,  who  deposited  it  in  his  bank. 

Question.  Who  carried  the  draft  on  from  Washington  to  New 
York? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  who.  It  was  in  an  envelope  addressed  to 
Gillmore. 

Question.  Was  it  ever  cashed  ? 

Answer.  It  was  deposited  in  bank  to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Schell. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  George  Irving  endorse  the  whole  draft  over  to 
Mr.  Schell  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  and  Mr.  Schell  took  it  and  deposited  it  in  his 
bank. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  Schell  paid  his  advances  out  of  that  draft? 

Answer.  I  was  directed  to  settle  with  Schell. 

Question.  Did  he  give  you  a  note? 

Answer.  Mr.  Scliell  was  to  take  out  of  the  draft  $45,700,  also 
$5,000  lor  his  commission,  and  he  was  to  i)ay  me  for  my  services  in 
investigating  the  title  and  coming  on  here,  and  the  balance  he  was  to 
account  for  to  me,  for  George  Irving.  Mr.  Irving  authorized  me  to 
settle  with  him  and  take  his  note.  A  long  time  elapsed  before  I  got 
his  note,  but  I  got  it  finally. 

Question.  To  wliom  was  it  made  payable? 

Witness  here  produced  the  original  note,  of  which  the  following  is 
a  copy : 


TESTIMONY.  237 

'^  New  York,  July  15,  1857. 
'^'§51,768  75. 

*'  One  year  after  date  I  promise  to  pay  to  my  own  order,  fifty-one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  sixty-eight  dollars  and  seventy- five  cents. 

''RICHARD  SCHELL. 
('^Endorsed,  Richard  Schell.'') 

Question.  You  hold  that  note  for  collection? 

Answer.  That  note  is  in  my  hands,  and  if  it  is  not  paid  when  it 
comes  due  I  will  collect  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  Have  you  any  idea  what  prompted  this 
loan  from  Irving  to  Schell  ?  Was  it  personal  good  will  growing  out 
of  Schell's  loan  of  money  to  Irving  ? 

Answer.  The  fact  is  Schell  loaned  Irving  $45,700,  and  I  suppose 
Irving  loaned  him  this  money  for  that  ;  all  I  can  answer  in  regard  to 
that,  however,  is  what  George  Irving  told  me  when  I  asked  him 
whether  I  should  not  collect  this  money  immediately  and  invest  it  ;  I 
do  not  regard  it  as  a  loan  ;  the  way  I  understand  it  is  this  :  I  was  to 
have  received  this  money  and  paid  to  Mr.  Schell  the  money  he  had 
advanced,  leaving  the  balance  in  my  pocket. 

Question.  When  was  that  note  given  you  by  Mr.  Schell  ? 

Answer.  I  considered  the  balance  due  by  Mr.  Schell  like  a  book 
account,  but  at  the  same  time  the  note  is  evidence  as  to  date.  I 
called  upon  Mr.  Schell  to  give  me  a  note,  I  think,  since  this  investi- 
gation commenced,  and  then  he  sent  me  this  note.  It  was  sent  more 
as  a  memorandum  of  the  transaction  than  anything  else. 

Question.  When  was  it  sent  to  you? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell. 

Question.  Was  it  anywhere  about  the  time  of  the  date  of  it  ? 

Answer.  Ko,  sir  ;  it  must  have  been  long  since  the  date  of  it. 

Question.  Was  it  sent  to  you  within  the  last  three  months? 

Answer.  I  am  not  sure  whether  it  was  sent  to  me  before  I  was  ex- 
amined or  not.  The  thing  is  very  indefinite  in  my  mind  ;  I  should 
say  it  was  sent  perhaps  since  then. 

Question.  You  would  not  swear  that  it  was  sent  to  you  six  months 
ago? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  called  upon  him  to  settle  with  me  a  long  time 
ago,  to  give  me  a  statement  showing  what  the  balance  was. 

Question.  Then  it  was  some  time  after  Irving  let  Schell  have  this 
money  that  he  gave  him  any  acknowledgment  of  his  indebtedness.  Is 
that  note  negotiable  paper  ? 

Answer.  1  suppose  it  to  be  ;  "  value  received  "  is  not  necessary  ;  I 
think  I  could  raise  the  money  upon  it  if  I  wanted  it,  though  I  con- 
sider it  merely  as  a  memorandum. 

Question.  From  whose  hands  did  you  receive  that  note  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  sent  to  my  office  from  Richard  Schell. 

Question.  Was  it  sent  to  you  in  a  letter  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  .sent  in  an  envelope. 

Question.  Do  you  know  that  that  note,  the  signature,  and  the  en- 
dorsement upon  its  back,  is  in  Richard  Schell's  handwriting? 


238  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  think  it  is  his  own  handwriting. 

Question.  Do  you  think  the  hody  of  the  note,  the  signature,  and 
the  endorsement,  are  all  in  Richard  Schell's  handwriting? 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  all  in  Hichard  Schell's  handwriting. 

Question.  Is  interest  to  be  paid  upon  that  note  ? 

Answer.  I  never  waived  interest.  I  never  took  notice  before  that 
interest  was  not  in  the  note. 

Question.  Did  you  bring  this  note  on  from  New  York  with  you? 

Answer.  I  have  had  it  in  this  coat  pocket  ever  since  it  was  sent  to 
me. 

Question.  When  did  you  come  on  here  ? 

Answer.  Last  Friday  night,  in  company  with  Mr.  Richard  Schell. 

Question.  Did  Prosper  M.  Wemore  come  on  with  you? 

Answer.  He  did  not  come  on  here  until  last  Sunday  morning. 

Question.  Did  you  come  here  in  regard  to  this  investigation  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  came  alone.  Mr.  Richard  Schell  requested  me 
to  come,  that  he  was  coming  on  to  be  examined. 

Question.  You  have  had  that  note  in  your  pocket  for  a  long  time? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  if  it  had  not  been  in  my  pocket  I  should  have 
put  it  in  when  I  came  on  here. 

Question.  How  was  this  amount  of  $51,768  75  arrived  at? 

Answer.  The  bond  and  mortgage  was  §85,000,  and  the  cash  was 
$45,000.  As  I  stated  to  you  before,  there  were  two  small  mortgages 
which  we  had  to  pay  off,  amounting  to  $20,000.  These  mortgages 
were  not  due  at  the  time  we  desired  to  satisfy  them,  and  the  parties 
holding  them  claimed  a  year's  interest  in  advance  before  they  would 
take  the  principal  of  their  money.  This  Mr.  Irving  refused  to  pay, 
but  at  last  agreed  to  pay  $600  or  §700,  a  part  or  whole  of  it.  That 
made,  with  what  was  paid  Wissman,  $45,650  or  $45,680.  Then  we 
got  $1 15,000  from  the  government,  out  of  which  Schell  took  $45,650 
or  $15,680,  which  he  had  advanced,  the  commission  allowed  him  for 
raising  the  money,  which  was  $5,000,  and  paid  me  $750.  Take  that 
from  the  $115,000,  and  there  is  left  $63,600.  Then  he  paid  George 
Irving  $12,000  in  cash. 

Question.   Who  paid  him  that? 

Answer.  Richard  Schell.  The  $12,000  from  the  $63,600  leaves 
$51,600. 

Question.  When  did  Richard  Schell  pay  that  $12,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Was  it  paid  to  Irving  in  person,  or  to  you? 

Answer.  It  wis  not  paid  to  me  or  in  my  presence^  but  they  both 
told  me  til  at  it  had  been  paid. 

Question.  Was  it  paid  in  one  sum? 

Answer.  I  believe  it  was. 

Question.  Were  you  then  attorney  for  Irving  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  been  his  attorney  throughout  the  trans- 
action. 

Question.  Do  you  know  why  Schell  paid  Irving  that  money  ? 

Answer.  Because  he  wanted  it.  It  was  his  money,  and  he  asked 
him  to  })ay  him  so  much  of  it  immediately. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  pay  George  Irving  any  other  money? 


TESTIMONY.  239 

Answer.  IN'ot  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Was  any  money  paid  on  account  of  this  transaction? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  In  this  one  case  George  Irving  was  paid  .$12j000  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  it  was  paid  to  him.  I  was  not  present 
when  it  was  paid,  and  do  not  know  how  it  was  paid,  but  I  think  it  was 
paid  by  a  check  ;  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  paid  in  different  sums  or  in 
one  sum  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  He  told  me  that  he  had  received  $12,000, 
and  Schell  tokl  me  that  he  had  paid  him  si 2,000. 

Question.   Schell  requested  you  to  come  on  here? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  told  me  he  was  coming  on  to  be  examined, 
and  desired  me  to  come  on  with  him. 

Question.  Did  he  wish  you  to  act  as  his  laywer. 

Answer.  I  suppose,  if  he  wanted  a  lawyer,  he  would  apply  to  me 
as  his  counsel. 

Question.  When  did  he  consult  with  you? 

Answer.  When  he  was  put  into  this  transaction  by  advancing  so 
much  money,  he  became  anxious  to  get  it  back,  and  he  said  to  me 
that  Irving  had  employed  me  and  I  must  have  it  closed  up  ;  that 
money  was  scarce  and  he  wanted  to  get  out  what  he  had  advanced, 
and  he  then  insisted  that  I  should  come  on  to  Washington  and  get 
the  money.  He  told  me  that  the  money  must  be  got  out  or  he  would 
never  advance  any  more  money  to  these  people.  I  have  been  paid 
out  of  the  fund,  because  I  was  employed  by  George  Irving  to  come 
on  here  and  satisfy  the  government  that  the  title  was  all  right,  but  I 
was  never  employed  by  Richard  Schell. 

Question.  Did  you  receive  the  money  you  used  to  pay  those  mort- 
gages from  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I  told  him  about  mortgages  to  the  amount  of 
$20,000  being  upon  the  property,  and  tliat  until  they  were  paid  off 
Wissman  could  not  give  a  title;  he  was  not  willing  to  do  it  at  first 
but  I  told  him  it  must  be  done  and  I  took  his  .$20,000.  I  drew  my  own 
checks,  had  them  certified,  and  went  down  to  Flushing  and  paid  off 
the  mortgages.  The  $20,000  exceeded  the  amount  I  had  to  use,  and 
I  gave  Mr.  Schell  my  check  for  the  difference. 

Question.   When  was  this  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  on  the  3d  of  July,  the  day  before  I  came  on 
to  Washington. 

Question.  What  was  your  object  in  that  proceeding? 

Answer.  I  was  coming  on  here  to  satisfy  the  government  that  we 
had  a  clean  title,  and  we  advanced  the  money  to  pay  off  these  mortgages, 
so  that  Wissman  could  give  us  his  deed  clear. 

Question.  Had  you  ever  seen  Irving's  lawyer  before? 

Answer.  It  is  like  enough  I  had. 

Question.    Who  introduced  you  to  him  ? 

Answer.  I  have  known  his  father  and  his  family  for  many  years, 
and  have  no  recollection  of  being  introduced  to  him. 

Question.  Did  not  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  accompany  him  when  he 
first  called  to  see  you  on  this  business  ? 


240  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  meeting  them  together  at  my 
office. 

Question  hy  Mr.  Florence.  Are  you  aware  of  the  relations  existing 
between  them  ? 

Answer.  I  am.  I  believe  they  are  very  intimate,  and  have  been  for 
years.     They  live  not  far  from  one  another. 

Question.   Would  it  be  strange  to  see  them  together? 

Answer.  I  should  think  it  strange  if  they  were  not.  They  board 
close  together  in  the  country,  and  are  very  intimate. 

Question.  Was  Richard  Schell,  at  the  time  of  this  transaction,  a 
solvent  broker  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  Eichard  Schell's  deposits,  as  a  broker,  have  ex- 
ceeded five  or  six  millions  a  year. 

Question.   Was  he  a  solvent  broker  on  the  15th  day  of  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  more  doubt  of  his  being  a  solvent  broker  on 
that  day,  and  of  that  claim  being  good  against  Richard  Schell,  than 
if  I  had  it  in  my  pocket.  I  have  no  doubt  of  his  being  able  to  pay 
then  and  now,  if  I  should  sue  him  for  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  that  his  property  is  in  the  name  of  his 
wife? 

Answer.  I  know  nothing  about  his  property. 

Question.  What  is  his  reputation  for  solvency  on  the  street? 

Answer.   That  he  is  a  man  of  property. 

Question.  Had  he  such  a  reputation  in  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  have  never  heard  anything  to  the  contrary.  He  had 
some  difficulties  years  ago,  I  believe,  but  he  got  out  of  them. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  since  he  has  been 
on  here? 

Answer.  A  dozen  times  a  day. 

Question.  Did  he  come  on  in  relation  to  this  investigation  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  D.)  you  know  from  any  statements  of  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more  whether  he  had  any  negotiations  with  the  War  Department  in 
relation  to  the  sale  of  this  property? 

Answer.  He  has  stated  over  and  over  again  that  he  had  nothing  to 
do  with  it,  either  with  the  War  Department,  Mr.  Irving,  or  anybody 
else. 

Question.  Has  Richard  Schell  ever  told  you  that  he  had  any  nego- 
tiations with  the  War  Department  on  the  subject? 

Answer.  So  i'ar  as  I  have  been  talked  to  as  his  counsel,  I  might  say 
I  was  not  willing  to  answer  ;  but  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  answer, 
and  will  say,  that  in  all  the  conversations  I  had  with  him  the  whole 
thing  has  been  to  carry  out  my  views,  it  being  George  Irving's  trans- 
action ;  Richard  Schell  has  told  me  that  he  never  communicated  with 
the  War  Department. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  communicate  with  John  C.  Mather  or  R. 
W.  Latham  in  any  way  in  relation  to  this  transaction? 

Answer.  1  never  saw  Latham  in  my  life  until  within  the  past  fort- 
night. I  think  he  is  here  now.  I  never  had  anything  to  do  with 
him  in  relation  to  this  transaction. 

Question.  Who  is  Mr.  Latham  ? 


TESTIMONY.  241 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  He  is  a  gentleman  here.  In  all  these 
transactions  I  have  never  heard  of  the  man  before. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  the  auctioneers  for  the  certificate  they  gave 
as  to  the  value  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  the  certificate,  and  never  paid  them.  I  never 
knew  there  was  such  a  paper  until  I  heard  it  since  I  have  been  here 
this  last  time.  I  believe  Augustus  Schell  swore  there  was  such  a 
paper  ;  did  he  not  ? 

Question.   Are  you  Prosper  M.  Wetmore's  lawyer? 

Answer.  I  am,  when  he  has  any  law  business  to  do.  He  is  a  cousin 
of  mine. 

Question.  You  have  done  his  law  business  ? 

Answer.  I  have  done  it  for  thirty  years,  off  and  on. 

Question.  Has  Irving  ever  communicated  to  you  that  he  permitted 
this  fifty-one  thousand  and  odd  hundreds  dollars  to  remain  in  Schell's 
hand  ? 

Answer.  He  never  has.  He  never  said  more  to  me  about  it  than  to 
settle  the  account  with  Schell. 

Question.  Do  you  regard  it  as  an  investment  drawing  interest? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  regard  it  as  drawing  interest  just  the  same  as^ 
if  it  was  so  stated  in  that  paper.     I  thought  it  was  in  it. 

Question.  To  your  knowledge,  is  there  any  understanding,  orally  or 
in  writing,  that  the  proceeds  of  that  note  are  to  be  distributed  to  any 
parties  ? 

Witness.  My  knowledge  upon  that  point  can  only  be  derived  from, 
conversations  with  these  different  parties. 

The  Chairman.  From  your  knowledge,  derived  from  Mr.  Irving,  is 
there  any  understanding,  express  or  implied,  in  writing  or  orally,  that 
there  is  to  be  any  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  that  note  to  any 
parties  ;    and  if  so,  to  whom  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Irving  engaged  me  as  his  counsel,  and  I  supposed 
talked  with  perfect  freedom  to  me  about  the  transaction  ;  but,  from 
its  commencement  to  the  present  time,  I  have  never  received  any  inti- 
mation from  him  other  than  that  he  was  entitled  to  the  whole  $51,768, 
and  never  expected  to  give  a  cent  of  it  to  living  man.  He  has  told 
me  under  no  circumstances  to  distribute  a  dollar  of  it,  and  I  have 
never  been  told  by  anybody  that  they  had  any  participation  in  it. 

Question.  Did  he  never  communicate  to  you  his  purpose  in  leaving 
it  with  iSchell  ? 

Answer.  If  he  had  left  it  with  me  I  should  have  invested  it  for  him  :, 
and  I  suppose  he  left  it  with  him  as  an  investment. 

Question.   Did  Richard  Schell  fail  during  the  late  revulsion  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question .  Is  he  in  good  credit  now  ? 

Answer.  I  think  so. 

Question.  Do  you  hold  any  of  Schell' s  paper? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  property  that  he  liolds  in  his  own 
name? 

Answer.  I  do  not ;  in  fact,  I  never  knew  much  of  his  affairs,  not 
being  his  lawyer. 

H.  Rep.  Com.  549 16 


242  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  You  are  the  best  real  estate  lawyer  in  New  York  city, 
and  well  acquuainted  with  the  property  and  property  owners  there  ; 
do  you  know  that  Richard  Schell  owns  any  property  there? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not. 

Question.  Is  it  not  common  among  people  that  he  does  not  own 
any? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  I  only  know  this  money  will  be  collected 
out  of  Richard  Schell,  if  he  does  not  pay  it. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  consult  with  Irving  as  to  the  terms  of  set- 
tlement with  Schell — this  note  for  $51,768? 

Answer.  Irving  told  me  t  might  settle  with  him,  and  take  his  note 
for  a  year. 

Questiun.   Did  Irving  ever  see  the  memorandum? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know.  He  may  have  seen  it  before  it  was  sent 
to  me.     I  have  not  shown  it  to  him. 

Question.  When  was  the  $750  paid  you  ? 

Answer.  A  day  or  two  alter  we  got  back  Schell  paid  it  to  me  out  of 
the  money  paid  to  him  for  his  advances. 

March  13,  1858. 

Present — Haskin,  Hopkins,  and  IIall» 

John  McKeon,  esq.,  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman  : 

I  was  United  States  district  attorney  for  tlie  southern  district  of 
New  York  for  the  year  1857.  My  first  knowledge  of  the  purchase 
of  Wilkins'  Point  for  a  fortification  was  the  receipt  of  a  letter  irom 
the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  May  27,  1857. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  tlie  letter : 

War  Department, 
Washington,  May  27,  1857. 

Sir  :  1  have  the  honor  to  enclose,  herewith,  an  '^  abstract  of  title  of 
George  Irving"  to  certain  property  in  Queens  county,  New  York, 
known  as  "  Thomas' "  or  "  Willetfs  Neck,"  for  your  examination 
and  certificate  previous  to  its  being  submitted  to  the  Attorney  General 
of  the  United  States  lor  his  opinion. 

I  shall  be  obliged  by  your  early  attention  to  this  subject. 

With  high  consideration,  I  am,  very   respectfully,  your  obedient 

servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War. 
Hon.  John  McKeon, 

U.  S.  Attorney,  southern  district y  New  York, 

New  York  city, 

Ai'terwards,  1  received  another  letter  from  the  department,  dated 
the  28th  of  June,  1857,  signed  W  R.  Drinkard,  chief  clerk.  The 
iollowing  is  a  copy  : 


TESTIMONY.  243 

War  Deparmevt, 
Washington,  June  28,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  herewith  enclose  the  map  of  Willett's  Neck,  on  Long  Island, 
purchased  of  Mr.  Irving  for  fortification  purposes. 

I  was  of  the  impression,  until  within  a  day  or  two  past,  that  this 
map  was  in  your  possession,  and  I  send  it  at  once  that  no  further  delay 
in  the  investigation  of  Mr.  Irving's  title  may  be  had. 
Very  respectiuUy,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  R.  DRINKARD, 
♦  Chief  Clerk. 

Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore  came  to  Washington,  and  afterwards 
called  and  saw  me  in  relation  to  the  matter  at  my  office  :  my  deputy, 
Joachimsen,  came  on  to  Washington  with  Wetmore,  but  I  am  not  cer- 
tain as  to  the  time,  though  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was  about 
the  4th  of  July  ;  he  returned  with  the  papers,  and  took  them  to  New- 
port with  him  ;  about  this  time,  while  my  assistant,  Joachimsen,  was 
in  Newport,  Richard  Schell,  the  brother  of  the  collector,  called  upon 
me  and  asked  me  if  I  had  the  papers  relating  to  the  title  ;  I  told  him 
the  papers  were  at  Newport  ;  he  then  appeared  disappointed,  and  very 
anxious  to  obtain  the  papers,  and  telegraphed  Joachimsen  on  the  7th 
of  July,  1857,  as  follows  : 

[By  Telegraph.] 

Dated  Nea7  York,  1th  July,  1857. 

Received  Newport,  July  7^  1857. 

Will  you  see  me  in  this  city  to-morrow  morning,  the  8th  instant? 
Bring  papers  in  regard  to  Willeit's  Point,  Long  Island,  as  I  wish 
to  consult  you  legally. 
Answer  paid. 

RICHARD  SCHELL. 
Philip  J.  Joachimsen. 

He  received  the  following  telegraph  in  reply : 

I  will  be  at  the  office  to-morrow. 

P.  J.  JOACHIMSEN, 

Newport. 
Richard  Schell,  Esq., 

New  York. 

Previously,  on  the  Gth  of  July,  I  received  a  telegraphic  despatcli 
frooQ  William  C.  Wetmore,  from  Washington,  dated  the  same  day,  aa 
follows : 

[By  Telegraph. — Morse  Line.] 

Dated  Washington,  July  6,  18.*>7. 
Received,  New  York,  July  6,  1857,  at  2.28  o'clock  m. 
Send  by  to-day's  mail  all  the  papers  and  searches  in  your  possession 
in  relation  to  Willett's  Neck  to  the  Attorney  General.     All  olhar 
Decessary  copies  of  deeds,  &c  ,  are  here,  and  he  is  satisfied  with  tbein, 

W.  C.  WETMORE. 
John  McKkon,  Esq., 

Vuitrict  Attorney  of  the  United  States, 


244  TESTIMONY. 

On  the  7th  of  July,  Mr.  Richard  Schell  brought  to  my  office  a 
despatch,  without  name,  dated  Washington,  July  7,  1857,  directed  to 
Richard  Schell,  as  follows  : 


Washington,  July  7. 
Richard  Schell. 

XXII  W.  XXIst,  New  York.  Ask  McKeon  to  telegraph  that  he 
has  a  certificate  that  all  taxes  are  paid  on  Willett's  Neck  property. 
We  can  then  get  our  draft. 

I  then  told  Mr.  Schell  that  I  had  no  such  certificate  and  could  not 
give  it  He  said  he  was  very  anxious  to  get  it  through,  and  I  was 
anxious  to  comply  with  his  request,  on  account  of  his  great  anxiety 
about  it,  and  also  the  anxiety  of  the  parties  at  Washington,  from  the 
despatches  received  by  me  in  relation  to  it.  It  was  then  arranged 
between  Schell  and  myself  that  he  was  to  leave  money  sufficient  to 
secure  any  unpaid  taxes  upon  the  property  with  me.  He  then  gave 
me  one  or  two  checks,  certified,  or  to  be  certified,  far  beyond  any  amount 
of  any  probable  taxes.  I  took  Schell's  checks  and  locked  them  up 
in  my  drawer  and  telegraphed  to  Washington  to  the  following  effect : 
^^The  taxes  on  Willett's  Neck  property  have  been  secured."  After- 
wards Schell  satisfied  me  that  the  taxes  had  been  paid,  and  I  returned 
him  the  checks.  I  recollect  he  was  very  anxious  to  have  the  matter 
closed.  He  said  he  had  an  interest  in  the  transaction,  having  ad- 
vanced money  on  it,  and  was  anxious  to  get  his  money  back.  I  re- 
marked, '^Advanced  money  without  searching  the  title?  "  to  which 
he  replied  that  '^  it  was  the  nature  of  his  business."  He  said  he  was 
very  anxious  to  get  it  through,  and  stated  to  my  assistant,  in  my 
presence,  that  he  would  pay  him  handsomely  to  expedite  the  matter. 
I  answered  to  this  that  no  one  could  pay  in  this  matter ;  that  he  would 
be  paid  by  the  government  of  the  United  States.  On  the  8th  of  July 
I  wrote  the  following  letter,  which  was  posted  on  that  day  for  Wash- 
ington. 


Official.]  July  8,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  papers  and  map  respecting  property 
at  Willett's  Neck,  L.  I.,  purchased  for  the  use  of  the  United  States. 

None  of  the  })ai)ers  required  by  your  general  regulations  have  been 
furnished  to  me. 

It  appears  that  there  are  some  apparent  incumbrances  on  the  prop- 
erty and  perhaps  some  taxes  ;  and  the  parties  have  de])osited  with 
me  sufficient  funds  to  discbarge  such  liens. 

It  is,  however,  represented  to  me  that  the  original  deeds  and  other 
papers  required  by  you  are  in  your  liands,  and  that  you  have  affirmed 
the  validity  of  the  title,  except  as  to  the  lien  for  taxes. 

I  therefore  limit  my  official   action  to  certifying  that,  if  the  facts 


TESTIMONY.  245 

represented  to  me  be  true,  the  title  would  be  valid,  subject  to  any  lien 
for  taxes,  &c.,  not  yet  discharged,  and  for  which  the  parties  have 
furnished  the  necessary  funds. 

With  great  respect,  vour  very  obedient, 

JOHN  McKEON, 
United  States  District  Attorney, 
Hon.  J.  S.  Black, 

Attorney  General  U.  S.,  Washington,  D.  (7. 

On  the  8th  of  July  I  received  a  letter  from  R.  Schell,  as  follows  : 

"'  Office  of  Rich'd  Schell,  61  and  62  Merchants'  Exchange, 

Neio  York,  July  8,  1857. 

Mr.  Wetmore  will  be  home  to-morrow,  and  you  will  oblige  me  by 
not  sending  the  papers  to-day  to  Washington. 
Will  call  upon  you  to-morrow. 
Yours,  &c., 

RICH'D  SCHELL. 
J.  McKeon,  Esq.,  or  Mr.  Joachimsen. 

I  never  gave  any  certificate  of  title  of  this  property  to  the  govern- 
ment, except  as  in  the  letter  of  the  8th  July.  The  abstract  of  title  to 
this  property,  as  it  passed  the  War  Department,  was  not  prepared  in 
my  oflSce  or  under  my  direction  ;  no  certificate  of  title,  except  as 
above,  came  from  my  ofiice.  .The  passing  of  the  title  was  finished  in 
Washington.  I  considered  the  passing  of  the  title  from  my  office  the 
certificate  of  the  district  attorney  for  the  southern  district  of  New 
York.  I  was  the  United  States  district  attorney  there  about  three 
years  and  a  half.  During  that  time  I  searched  and  passed  several 
titles  for  the  government.  The  certificates  of  title  in  each  of  these 
cases  came  from  me.  There  was  not  during  my  official  term  a  single 
case,  except  this,  where  the  title  was  arranged  and  closed  at  the  At- 
torney General's  office  without  the  certificate  from  my  office.  Schell 
and  William  C.  Wetmore  were  the  only  persons  I  saw  in  relation  to 
the  title,  to  my  knowledge.  I  never  saw  George  Irving  in  relation  to 
the  title  or  the  transaction. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Hall  : 

I  will  not  swear  I  never  saw  him,  or  will  I  swear  I  did  see  him.  In 
all  other  similar  transactions  my  certificate  was  absolute,  either  un- 
qualifiedly for  or  against  the  title. 

April  26,  1858. 
David  Van  Nostrand,  sworn. 
Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  John  B.  Haskin  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  my  business  is  book- 
selling and  publishing. 

Question.  Are  you  related  to  Major  Barnard,  now  stationed  in  New- 
York  ? 


246  TESTIMONY 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  I  have  known  him  intimately  for  a  long  time. 

Question.  State  all  you  know  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  the 
Wilkins'  Point  property  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  Major  Barnard  came  to  me,  I  think,  early  in  March,  and 
asked  me  if  I  knew  anything  about  property  opposite  Throg's  Point, 
Fort  Schuyler  ;  he  said  that  he  had  received  instructions  from  the 
engineer  department  to  make  arrangements  for  the  purchase  of  some 
point  opposite  that  for  a  fort.  I  knew  that  an  appropriation  had 
been  passed  for  that  purpose.  He  desired  me  to  find  out,  if  I  could, 
who  were  the  owners  of  the  property  all  along  there,  what  the  value 
of  the  land  was,  and  what  it  could  be  purchased  for.  He  gave  me  to 
understand  that  the  desirable  point  was  Wilkins'  Point ;  but,  of 
course,  that  was  between  ourselves,  and  he  did  not  want  it  known 
until  he  had  ascertained  what  it  could  be  got  for.  I  went  to  work 
immediately,  and  what  I  did  was  entirely  as  a  matter  of  friendship 
for  Major  Barnard.  I  think  I  first  went  to  see  Walter  Bowne,  but 
not  finding  him  in,  I  called  on  Wtssel  Smith  and  Judge  Green,  who 
were  in  the  same  office,  and  resided  at  Jamaica,  Long  Island.  Judge 
Green  told  me  that  A.  H.  Mickle  lived  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
property,  and  could  tell  me  who  were  the  owners  of  Wilkins'  Point. 
I  went  down  to  Mickle's  office,  but  he  was  not  in,  and  would  not  be  in 
that  day.  They  told  me  there  that  his  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Lawrence, 
was  in  town,  and  he  could  tell  me  something  about  it.  I  waited 
until  he  came  in,  and  he  informed  me  that  John  W.  Lawrence  knew 
more  than  he  did,  and  he  took  me  to  his  office.  I  had  a  long  conver- 
sation with  him,  and  accompanied  him  to  see  one  or  two  other  gentle- 
men. He  told  me  that  Weissman  was  the  owner  of  the  land.  1  asked 
him  what  its  value  was,  and  he  said  that  he  thought  it  could  be  bought 
readily  for  $1,000  an  acre  ;  that  that  would  bo  a  fair  price  for  it.  Ido 
not  recollect  now  the  names  of  the  other  gentlemen  we  called  on  to  get 
their  opinions  of  the  value  of  the  land  ;  at  his  suggestion  I  called  on 
a  firm  in  South  street,  but  they  knew  nothing  of  Weissman  or  his 
property.  It  then  occurred  to  me  that  Mr.  Day  would  be  able  to  give 
me  some  information,  as  he  owned  part  of  the  land.  Major  Barnard 
told  me  that  Day  had  called  at  his  office,  before  he  had  received  in- 
structions in  relation  to  selling  his  property  to  the  government,  and 
that  he  had  then  told  him  that  he  did  not  know  anything  about  it.  I 
went  to  Mr  Day,  and  found  he  was  engaged  with  a  gentleman,  and 
from  the  conversation,  I  judgded  it  was  Weissman  ;  t  stepped  up 
and  asked  whether  he  was  Mr.  Weissman,  and  he  replied  that 
he  was.  This  was  early  in  March  ;  it  must  have  been  immediately 
after  the  appropriation  passed,  and  Major  Barnard  had  received 
his  instructions.  I  had  quite  a  long  conversation  with  Mr.  Weiss- 
man as  to  the  price  he  valued  his  land  at,  and  i'ound  it  rather 
difficult  to  get  him  to  the  j)oint.  I  gave  him  to  understand  that 
it  was  not  certain  that  the  government  would  take  his  land  ;  that 
there  were  other  points  whicli  miglit  answer  the  purpose,  and  that  my 
object  was  to  find  out  what  the  value  of  each  was,  so  that  the  depart- 
ment might  decide  between  them.  His  first  intimation  as  to  the  price 
he  valued  his  property  at  was,  that  he  wanted  $1,000  an  acre  and  hie 
improvements  ])aid  for.      I  told  him  I  wanted  him  to  fix  upon  a  defi- 


TESTIMONY.  247 

nite  sum,  and  he  finally  said  that  he  would  take  $120,000  for  the  land, 
including  the  improvements. 

Question.  How  many  acres? 

Answer.  That  was  uncertain ;  my  impression  was  that  there  were  120 
acres.  It  included  all  outside  of  the  creek,  a  sort  of  peninsula,  except 
the  plot  he  had  sold  to  Mr.  Day. 

Question.  Your  impression  is  that  he  said  it  was  120  acres? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  He  said  that  the  original  deed  gave  150  acres, 
more  or  less  ;  and  Mr.  Day  told  me  that  his  plot  overran,  and  he  found 
he  had  a  greater  number  of  acres  than  he  thought  he  had  bought. 
His  impression  and  my  impression  was,  that  it  would  overrun  the 
original  estimate. 

Question.  That  was  120  acres? 

Answer.  1  am  not  sure;  it  might  have  been  111  or  112.  Mr.  Day  would 
not  make  any  proposition  at  all  that  day  ;  he  would  not  say  what  he 
would  sell  his  plot  for,  but  said  that  he  would  make  up  his  mind  and 
write  me  a  letter  submitting  a  proposition. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Weissman  know  that  you  were  acting  on  behalf 
of  the  government  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  did. 

Question.  And  Day,  also? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I  made  no  secret  of  the  matter.  I  told  him  I 
was  acting  on  behalf  of  the  government.  I  then  went  to  Mr.  Cryder,  who 
owns  the  opposite  point,  Cryder's  Point.  I  told  him  that  the  govern- 
ment was  about  building  a  fort  and  might  want  his  point.  He  said 
that  he  had  made  great  improvements  on  it  and  did  not  want  to  sell ; 
but  that  he  supposed  the  government  had  the  power  to  take  it  if  it 
wanted  it,  and  that  he  would  not  throw  any  obstacle  in  the  way  ;  all 
he  would  want  would  be  a  fair  price  for  the  land. 

Question.  How  many  acres  had  he? 

Answer.  1  think  seventy-five,  or  about  that.  I  asked  him  what  he 
thought  would  be  a  fair  price,  and  he  said  $1,000  an  acre.  He  told 
me  that  he  had  offered  to  sell  plots  to  particular  friends  who  vvantedto 
build  out  that  way,  and  I  think  he  said  that  he  had  sold  to  Mr.  Stewart 
Brown  at  that  rate.  He  wanted  $1,000  an  acre,  and  the  improve- 
ments paid  for ;  but,  said  he,  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  about  that,  if 
the  government  decide  to  take  it.  I  think  this  was  on  the  same  day  I 
saw  Weissman,  or  the  next  day  after.  Mr.  Cryder  acted  very  gentle- 
manly, indeed,  and  I  was  very  much  pleased  with  my  intercourse  with 
him.  He  offered  to  loan  the  map  of  his  original  purchase,  which 
included  Brown's  plot,  and  to  allow  me  to  take  a  co})y  of  it ;  and  in- 
vited Major  Barnard  and  myself  up  to  look  at  his  property.  From 
Mr.  Cryder  I  went  up  to  see  Mr,  Brown,  who  was  quite  alarmed  when 
he  heard  that  the  government  might  select  Cryder's  Point.  He  said 
he  had  just  put  up  a  house  which  had  cost  him  $25,000.  I  told  himi 
that  if  Cryder's  land  was  taken  the  government  would  feel  under  the 
necessity  of  taking  his  also,  to  which  he  replied  that  he  hoped  they 
would  not,  because  it  would  ruin  his  place.  He  was  quite  alarmed^, 
and  went  down  to  see  Cryder  about  it. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Cryder  tell  you  what  his  improvements  cost? 

Answer.   I   think    he   said    that   his  house  cost  some  $25,000  or 
$30,000. 


248  TESTIMONY. 

Question.   What  was  the  extent  of  Stewart  Brown's  property  ? 

Answer.  I  think  thirty-four  acres.  Mr.  Cryder  originally  purchased 
115  acres.  I  then  called  on  Mr.  Haggerty,  whose  place  adjoins 
Cryder's,  and  saw  his  son,  young  Mr.  Haggerty,  and  he  said  that  his 
father,  who  is  very  old,  would  he  in  the  city  during  the  next  week  ; 
that  he  would  he  very  anxious  to  see  me,  and  made  an  appointment  to 
see  me  the  next  day.  I  went  to  the  old  gentleman,  who  told  me  that 
he  did  not  care  about  selling,  hut  would  throw  no  obstacles  in  the 
way  if  the  government  wished  to  buy,  and  that  he  would  sell  his 
entire  plot  at  a  reasonable  price.  He  said  that  he  thought  $1,000 
would  be  a  fair  price. 

Question.  What  were  the  improvements  on  his  place? 

Answer.  He  has  no  improvements  of  any  account? 

Question.  How  many  acres  had  he? 

Answer.  I  think  115,  but  am  not  positive.  He  said  the  ruins  of 
an  old  fort  were  still  in  existence  on  his  place,  near  the  line  of  Mr. 
Cryder's. 

Question.  Were  you  on  the  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  Major  Barnard  went  out.  I  saw  Lawrence,  and 
made  an  appointment  with  him  for  Major  Barnard  to  go  out  a  day  or 
two  after.  Haggerty  said  that  he  did  not  want  to  sell,  but  that  he 
would  throw  no  obstacles  in  the  way.  He  had  not  improved  his  place 
much  ;  his  family  went  down  in  the  summer,  and  stopped  at  the  old 
farm  house.  These  places  are  a  mile  nearer  the  city  of  New  York, 
and  more  immediately  opposite  Fort  Schuyler  than  Wilkins'  Point. 
Cryder's  Point  is  more  directly  O2)posite  Fort  Schuyler  than  Wilkins' 
Point,  and  it  was  my  impression  would  answer  as  well,  if  not  better, 
the  purpose  for  which  government  wanted  land  in  that  vicinity.  Major 
Barnard,  however,  did  not  think  so.  He  said  there  were  some  advan- 
tages at  Wilkins'  which  could  not  be  had  at  Cryder's.  I  informed 
Major  Barnard  of  all  the  conversations  I  had  upon  the  subject. 

Question.  What  was  Major  Barnard  in  favor  of  doing? 

Answer.   In  favor  of  purchasing  Wilkins'  Point. 

Question.  At  the  price? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  not  at  $120,000.  We  made  up  our  minds  that  a 
fair  price  to  give  Mr.  Weissman  was  $100,000. 

Question.  Did  you  offer  that ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  we  never  got  authority  to  do  so. 

Question.   Describe  your  next  interview  with  Weissman  ? 

Answer.  1  had  four,  five,  or  six  interviews  with  Weissman.  He 
came  into  my  oiHce  quite  often,  and  we  had  considerable  conversation 
about  it.  He  is  a  German,  and  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand  him. 
He  brought  me  a  map  of  his  plot,  and  discussed  the  question  over  and 
over  again  for  an  hour  at  a  time.  Major  Barnard  never  saw  Mr. 
Weissman. 

Question.   Was  Mr.  Weissman  anxious  to  sell  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir  ;  he  was  desirous  to  sell. 

Question.  Did  he  inform  you  that  this  property  had  been  in  the 
market  for  sale  for  several  years  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  What  was  the  result  of  your  interviews  with  Weissman? 


TESTIMONY.  249 

Answer.  That  this  definite  offer  of  the  property  at  $120,000  was 
made  to  me.  It  was  not  in  writing,  and  of  course  not  binding  upon 
Weissman. 

Question.  Did  he  give  you  until  a  certain  day  to  accept  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  he  told  me  that  he  had  made  a  contract  to  sell 
to  Irving,  if  he  did  not  sell  to  the  government  before  the  1st  day  of 
April.  I  think  Major  Barnard  saw  the  contract  on  the  day  on  which 
it  was  made  at  Lawrence's,  and  told  me  that  it  was  made,  and  asked 
me  whether  I  thought  it  was  made  in  good  faith.  I  told  him  I  did 
not  know  anything  about  it. 

Question.  Mr.  Weissman  told  you  that  he  had  made  a  contract  to 
sell  to  Irving,  if  the  government  did  not  take  the  property  before  the 
first  of  April  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  For  how  much  ? 

Answer.  For  $130,000,  I  think. 

Question.  Did  he  call  on  you  before  that  time,  and  seem  anxious  that 
the  government  should  take  it  at  $120,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  was  very  anxious.  He  called  on  me  on  sev- 
eral occasions,  and  I  informed  Major  Barnard  of  it. 

Question.  Why  did  not  Major  Barnard  close  with  him? 

Answer.  I  understood  Major  Barnard  to  say  that  the  engineer  de- 
partment thought  the  price  too  high.  I  thought  then  that  the  gov- 
ernment committed  a  blander  in  not  taking  it  for  $120,000,  or  as 
much  less  as  we  could  have  gotten  it  for. 

Question.  Please  give  the  committee  a  history  of  the  act  of  condem- 
nation which  was  passed  by  the  legislature  of  New  York. 

Answer.  Major  Barnard  told  me  that  he  had  received  instructions 
from  the  department  to  have  an  act  of  condemnation  passed,  and  I 
advised  him  that  the  United  States  district  attorney  was  the  proper 
person  to  apply  to  to  have  it  drawn  up,  and  that  if,  when  he  had  it 
drawn,  he  would  send  it  to  the  member  from  Queens  county  he  would 
attend  to  it.  I  went  to  McKeon  myself,  and  asked  him  to  make  a 
draught  of  such  an  act,  and  he  referred  me  to  Joachimsen,  his  deputy, 
who  told  me  that  he  would  make  the  draught.  I  think  I  asked  him  who 
the  member  for  Queen's  county  was,  and  he  told  me  David  Floyd 
Jones.  I  called  two  or  three  days  afterwards,  got  the  draught,  and  gave 
it  to  Major  Barnard. 

Question.   What  time  was  this  ? 

Answer.  About  a  week  or  two  after  my  interview  with  Weissman, 
Major  Barnard  told  me  that  he  had  sent  the  draught  up  to  Albany,  but 
that  he  had  received  no  answer  from  Jones,  and  tliat  he  had  received 
instructions  from  Albany  ;  that  he  did  not  want  to  go,  but  that  ne 
would  be  obliged  to  ;  and  finally  he  went,  and,  on  his  return,  told  me 
that  the  act  would  be  passed ;  that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Jones  and  one  or 
two  members  he  knew,  and  that  the  act  would  go  through  without 
any  difficulty.  One  or  two  days  after  he  told  me  that  he  understood 
the  act  had  been  passed. 

Question.  Was  it  not  with  a  view  of  having  the  property  condemned 
that  tlie  department  at  Washington  requested  Major  Barnard  to  have 
the  act  passed? 


250  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  The  object  was,  as  I  then  understood  it,  that  they  might 
make  up  their  minds.  An  act  had  to  be  passed  to  cede  jurisdiction, 
and  it  was  just  as  well  to  include  an  act  of  condemnation.  The  act 
did  not  refer  to  this  point  particularly,  but  to  any  land  the  govern- 
ment might  purchase  thereabouts. 

Question.  Did  you  not  understand,  at  the  time,  that  Major  Barnard, 
General  Totten,  and  the  engineer  bureau  here,  considered  the  price 
asked  by  Weissman  exorbitant,  and  thought  it  best  to  have  a  jury  to 
assess  the  value  of  the  property  under  this  act? 

Answer.  I  understood  not  exactly  that  they  thought  so,  but  they 
inquired  whether  we  did  not  think  so. 

Question.  They  inquired  whether  Barnard  and  you  thought  so? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  communicate  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not,  except  through  Major  Barnard.  I  told  him  that, 
80  far  as  I  could  learn  from  persons  living  out  in  that  neighborhood, 
my  impression  was  that  a  jury  would  not  award  over  $120,000,  and 
possibly  might  not  award  over  >^100,000,  though  I  did  not  think  they 
would  go  under  that. 

Question.  You  were  never  on  this  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Ma,jor  Barnard  went  out,  but  I  was  engaged,  and 
could  not  go  with  him. 

Question.  While  you  were  negotiating  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment, did  any  person  other  than  Weissman  call  upon  you  in  relation 
to  the  matter. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn  called  and  told  me  that 
he  was  the  trustee  of  Mrs.  Weissman.  I  had  already  ascertained  that 
Weissman  did  not  own  the  property;  that  it  was  owned  by  his  wife, 
but  all  my  negotiations  were  with  Weissman.  Mr.  Van  Blankensteyn 
called  on  me  to  see  in  what  state  the  negotiations  were,  and  wliether 
the  department  would  probably  take  Wilkins'  Point  or  Cryder's 
Point ;  and  another  gentleman  called  on  me  and  told  me  that  he  was 
the  trustee  of  Mrs,  Cryder  ;  that  Cryder's  Point  was  in  her  hands,  and 
that  she  was  anxious  to  sell.  Cryder  was  not  anxious  to  sell  at  first, 
but  afterwards  his  firm  got  into  difficulty,  and  I  do  not  think  he 
would  have  objected  to  sell. 

Question.  Did  any  other  person  call  on  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  that  I  remember  ;  but  I  conversed  with 
thirty  or  forty  people  in  regard  to  the  matter. 

Question.  In  one  of  his  letters  to  the  engineer  bureau.  Major  Bar- 
nard stated  tliat  speculators  were  after  the  proi)erty,  and  that  they 
had  called  on  you  ;  do  you  remember  it? 

Answer.  He  must  have  been  mistaken.  It  was  a  mere  supposition 
that  speculators  were  after  the  property,  based  upon  the  fact  that 
Weissman  had  made  that  contract. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  an  interview  with  either  of  the  Mr. 
Schells  in  relation  to  this  property? 

Answer  No,  sir  ;  1  never  saw  them  in  relation  to  it.  1  know  Mr. 
Au<^ustus  Scheil,  but  1  do  not  know  Richard  Scliell. 

Question.  Did  he  call  on  you  and  have  any  conversation  upon  thia 
subject  ? 


TESTIMONY.  251 

Answer.  I  never  exchanged  a  word  with  !iim  on  the  subject.  I 
never  spoke  to  Richard  Schell. 

Question.  Do  you  know  John  C.  Mather? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  R.  W.  La- 
tham on  the  subject  ? 

Answer.  No.  sir  ;  I  do  not  know  him.     I  never  heard  of  him. 

Question.   Do  you  know  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  I  know  him  now,  but  I  did  not  know  him  at  the  time. 

Question.  Did  Irving  ever  call  upon  you? 

Answer,  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Weissman,  after  concluding  the  sale  with  Irving^ 
ever  have  any  conversations  with  you  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Weissman  called  on  me  on  the  last  day  oK  the  month, 
to  know  the  result  ;  and  I  told  him  that  we  had  no  authority  to  buy 
from  him,  and  that  the  matter  was  at  an  end,  so  far  as  we  were  con- 
cerned. 

Question.  Were  you  ever  approached,  or  any  attempt  made  to  bribe 
you,  in  order  to  influence  you  in  the  part  you  took  in  this  trans- 
action ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  we  were  in  hopes  that  the  department  would 
telegraph  Major  Barnard  on  the  31st  of  March,  and  give  him  authority 
to  make  a  definite  offer  ;  and  Mr.  Weissman  called  on  me  on  that 
day,  but  no  telegraph  came,  and  in  the  afternoon  I  told  Mr.  Weissman 
that  the  matter  was  at  an  end,  so  far  as  we  were  concerned ;  that  the 
department  considered  the  price  too  high,  and  that  they  preferred  to 
take  tlie  land  by  valuation  under  the  act  of  condemnation.  He  then 
asked  me  what  I  thought  he  had  better  do  ;  whether  he  should  close 
the  matter  with  Irving.  I  told  him  that  I  did  not  know  why  he 
should  not  ;  that  he  would  certainly  get  his  advance  of  five  or  ten 
thousand  dollars — T  do  not  recollect  which  it  was — and  that  he  would 
not  be  any  worse  off.  That  closed  my  intercourse  with  Mr.  Weissman. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  ? 

x\nswer.   Yes,  sir  :  I  have  known  him  a  good  many  years. 

Question.  When  was  he  informed  of  this  negotiation? 

Answer.  I  think  I  met  him  in  the  street,  and  knowing  that  he  was 
in  the  habit  of  boarding  up  in  that  neighborhood,  I  asked  him  who 
were  the  owners  and  what  was  the  value  of  the  land. 

Question.   When  was  this? 

Answer.   This  was  early  in  the  negotiation. 

Question.   What  reply  did  he  make? 

Answer.  My  impression  is,  that  he  said  land  was  extremely  high 
there.  I  told  him  that  from  what  I  could  learn  it  ought  to  be  bought 
for  $800  or  $1,000  an  acre.  Oh,  no,  said  he,  you  cannot  buy  for  such 
a  price  ;  land  is  worth  more.  I  told  him  that  I  wanted  to  ascertain 
about  it  for  the  government. 

Question.  Did  you  tell  him  about  the  appropriation? 

Answer.  I  told  him  that  I  was  inquiring  in  consequence  of  the 
appropriation  having  been  made. 

Question.  Had  you  any  other  conversation  with  him  about  it? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  having  had  any  definite  conversations 


252  TESTIMONY. 

with  him.  I  met  him  constantly^,  and  we  generally  had  some  talk 
about  Wilkins'  Point. 

Question.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  was  stopping  up  at  Mr.  Irving's? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  knew  that  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  doing 
60,  and  that  he  had  been  there  the  previous  summer. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Wetmore,  subsequent  to  this,  take  any  part  in 
the  negotiations  for  the  sale  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of.    I  never  had  anything  to  do  with  him. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  understand  from  him,  after  Irving  pur- 
chased the  property,  that  he  was  interested  in  selling  it  to  the  gov- 
ernment for  Irving? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  this  transaction  in  any 
way  after  your  negotiations  terminated  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  after  my  negotiations  terminated  I  had  nothing 
else  to  do  with  it,  and  know  nothing  about  it  except  what  I  saw  in 
the  papers. 

Question.  The  conversation  between  Wetmore  and  yourself,  to 
which  you  have  alluded,  was  before  the  first  of  April  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  some  time  before  that,  and  I  think  about 
the  time  I  first  commenced  making  inquiries.  When  I  commenced  I 
was  entirely  in  the  dark  ;  I  did  not  know  who  the  owners  in  the 
neighborhood  were,  or  what  the  value  of  the  land  was.  I  called  on 
Mr.  Grinnell,  who  owned  land  near  there,  and  he  told  me  that  he 
had  ten  acres  on  College  Pointy  four  or  five  miles  nearer  New  York, 
and  had  offered  to  sell  to  a  friend  at  $3,000,  but  that  he  did  not 
know  that  he  would  be  willing  to  sell  to  the  government  for  that 
price. 

Question.  His  property  was  no  site  for  a  fortification  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  point  was  mentioned  ;  the  ten  acres  would 
have  been  enough  for  the  fortification. 

Question.  Have  you  been  informed  at  the  engineer  bureau  whether 
the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  has  been  surveyed? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  Captain  Wright  told  me. 

Question.  How  many  acres  did  he  tell  you  were  in  the  plot? 

Answer.  95.  I  expressed  my  surprise  at  the  quantity  of  land 
falling  so  far  short  from  what  1  supposed  it  was  by  an  examination 
of  the  maps,  which  represented  it  as  being  111  or  120  acres.  The 
size  of  the  place  seemed  to  me  to  be  a  particular  advantage,  with  the 
creek,  which  isolated  the  whole  property,  and  gave  those  in  charge  the 
entire  and  uninterrupted  control  of  it ;  there  being  no  excuse  for  persons 
landing  there,  or  making  it  a  thoroughfare. 

Question.  When  you  made  application  to  Weissman,  did  you  tell 
him  that  you  wanted  the  property  for  the  government,  and  did  he 
make  a  formal  offer  to  you,  which  you  took  under  consideration,  he 
calling  upon  you  freciuently,  of  his  own  motion,  to  ascertain  whether 
the  government  would  accej)t  his  offer? 

Answer.  Yes  sir  ;  he  seemed  very  desirous,  for  some  reason,  that  the 
government  should  buy  it  rather  than  Irving. 

Question.  The  government  had  until  the  first  day  of  April  to  ac- 
cept it  ? 


TESTIMONY.  253 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  if  the  government  did  not  buy  it  previous  to  the 
first  of  April,  then  his  contract  with  Irving  was  to  go  into  effect? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Was  the  engineer  bureau  of  the  government  informed  of 
this? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  informed  Major  Barnard,  who  informed  the  en- 
gineer bureau. 

Question.  Did  Major  Barnard  tell  you  why  the  engineer  bureau  re- 
fused to  take  Weissman's  offer  ? 

Answer.  He  told  me  that  they  considered  it  too  high. 

Question.  Did  they  say  anything  in  relation  to  the  price  of  other 
property  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  they  did. 

Question.  Did  they  say  anything  of  Cryder's  Point? 

Answer.  That  was  thrown  out  as  a  feeler,  merely  to  create  the  im- 
pression that  we  might  take  some  other  point  and  prevent  Mr.  Weiss- 
man  from  thinking  that  we  would  have  to  take  his  point,  and  that  he 
could  charge  us  any  price  for  it. 

Question.  Did  you  offer  Weissman  $100,000  for  his  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  made  him  a  definite  offer.  I  had  no  au- 
thority. 

Question.  Your  inquiries  were  merely  to  ascertain  what  the  prop- 
erty would  sell  for  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  Weissman  said  he  would  take  $120,000  for  it  if  the 
government  purchased  before  the  first  of  April? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

March  5,  1858. 

Gilbert  Hicks,  sworn. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  Flushing,  Queens  county.  New  York. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  lived  there? 

Answer.  Twelve  years. 

Question.  Have  you  resided  all  your  lifetime  in  Queens  county? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Are  you  familiar  with  property  there  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Are  you  the  owner  of  property  there? 

Answer.  I  am,  and  have  been  for  twenty  years. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  judge  of  the  value  of  property 
there  ? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  property  purchased  for  the  government 
at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  am  well  acquainted  with  it. 

Question.  What  did  you  consider  a  fair  valuation  of  that  property, 
for  private  purposes,  in  April  last  ? 

Answer.  $500  an  acre  would  be  the  furthest  extent. 


254  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  For  private  or  public  purposes? 

Answer.  For  either. 

Question.  Would  it  be  worth  that  for  farming  purposes? 

Answer.  That  is  a  fair  valuation  for  any  purpose. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  acres  the  government  purchased? 

Answer.  About  80. 

Question.  Was  this  property  in  market  before  the  government  pur- 
chased it  ? 

Answer.  It  was 

Question.   For  how  long? 

Answer.   For  three  years. 

Question.   Did  you  know  the  owner  of  it,  Mr.  Weissman  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  price  he  held  it  at? 

Answer.   I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  property  at  Cryder's  Point;  and  how 
far  is  it  from  this  ? 

Answer.   I  do;  it  is  about  a  mile. 

Question.  It  is  between  this  property  and  Whitestone? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  or  not  consider  that  as  good  for  fortification 
purposes  as  this? 

Answer.   I  think  it  fully  as  good^  may  be  better. 

Question.  Is  it  nearly  opposite? 

Answer.  The  channel  runs  nearer  Cryder's  Point  than  Wilkins' 
Point. 

Question.  Was  the  property  at  Cryder's  Point  for  sale? 

Answer.  It  was.  It  has  been  for  sale  for  two  years  back. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  acres  there  are  in  it? 

Answer.   I  do  not. 

Question.   Do  you  know  what  was  asked  for  it  an  acre? 

Answer.  About  five  hundred  dollars  an  acre  The  collector  has 
the  selling  of  it — Henry  S.  Hover  ;  and  I  think  he  told  me  it  would 
sell  for  five  hundred  dollars  an  acre. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hopkins.)  In  the  estimate  of  five  hundred  dol- 
lars an  acre,  do  you  include  the  improvements  upon  the  property? 

Answer.  I  do  ;  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  worth  anything  more.  The 
fences  have  gone  down  ;  the  land  has  gone  down  ;  I  do  not  think  that 
the  improvenients  u[)on  the  land  would  make  it  worth  any  more. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  How  much  do  you  think  the  improve- 
ments were  worth  altogether? 

Answer.   About  eight  thousand  dollars. 

Question,  (hy  the  Chairman.)  Is  it  a  good  or  a  poor  house? 

Answer.  It  is  a  very  poor  house.  I  know  that  in  the  first  contract 
the  man  iailed,  and  Mr.  Weissman  had  to  pay  lour  thousand  dollars  to 
get  it  finished.  Eight  thousand  dollars  is  every  cent  the  improve- 
ments are  worth. 

Wm.  H.  Wilkins,  sworn. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman  )   Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  In  the  town  of  Northampton,  Queen's  county,  New  York. 


TEbTIMONT.  255 

Question.  About  how  far  from  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  About  four  miles.     I  live  in  sight  of  it. 

Question.  You  own  property  in  that  county? 

Answer.  I  do  ;  both  in  North  Hempsted  and  Flushing. 

Question.  How  many  acres? 

Answer.  One  hundred  and  twenty-seven  in  North  Hempsted,  and 
eighty  in  Flushing. 

Question.  When  did  you  purchase  your  property  in  Flushing? 

Answer.  Last  April. 

Question.  How  much  did  the  property  that  you  purchased  in  both 
places  cost  you  ? 

Answer.  Thirty-two  thousand  seven  hundred  dollars. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  value  of  real  estate  in 
Flushing? 

Answer.   I  am. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer,   I  do. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  it  is  worth  for  private  speculating 
purposes  ? 

Answer.  It  would  be  worth  probably  $400  per  acre. 

Question.  What  is  the  character  of  the  improvements  upon  the 
property  ? 

Answer.  There  is  a  dwelling-house.  I  have  never  been  in  it.  I 
cannot  say  how  good  a  house  it  is.  The  fences  are  in  poor  order,  and 
the  land  is  not  in  any  good  condition  of  cultivation.  There  is  not 
much  fence  on  it. 

Question  Has  the  property  for  some  time  past  been  held  for  sale, 
to  your  knowledo:e? 

Answer    I  have  heard  so. 

Question.  Has  that  been  the  understanding  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Flushing? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  talk  in  Flushing  that  it  was  for  sale. 

Question.  Have  you  heard  from  any  one  connected  with  the  prop- 
erty what  it  was  worth  ? 

Answer.  I  heard  one  person,  who  lived  on  the  other  side  of  the 
creek,  near  a  place  called  iSaddle  Rock,  say  that  it  was  for  sale,  and 
the  price  was  $35,000.     I  thought  that  it  was  cheap. 

Question.   When  was  that  ? 

Answer.  January  or  February,  I  think,  1857. 

Question.   Can  you  give  me  the  name  of  that  person  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot.     I  could  get  his  name. 

Question,  (bv  Mr.  Wood.)  You  say  that  this  property  was  in  mar- 
ket for  $35,000? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  You  are  familiar  with  the  value  of  land 
in  that  vicinity? 

Answer.  I  am. 

Question.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

Answer.  I  am  a  farmer,  in  Qneen's  county. 

Question.  Suppose  this  property  were  taken,  as  is  often   the  case, 


256  TESTIMONY. 

for  public  uses,  and  you  were  on  a  jury  to  assess  damages,  what  would 
be  the  value  you  would  attach  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  over  $400  an  acre.  I  think  that  would  be 
a  very  large  price  for  it. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  known  this  property  to  be  for  sale? 

Answer.  I  heard  that  it  was  for  sale  in  1857. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  seen  a  map  or  plat  of  it? 

Answer.  I  have  not. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Have  you  had  occasion  to  inquire  the 
value  of  property  in  Flushing,  growing  out  of  a  desire  to  purchase? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  property  upon  the  water  brings  a  larger  price 
than  property  which  is  back  of  it. 

Question.  Andrew  H.  Mickle  has  property  near  this  ;  what  did  he 
pay  for  it  ? 

Answer.  $10,250  for  100  acres.  It  fronts  on  the  bay,  and  runs 
back  to  the  road.  When  he  purchased  it,  it  was  in  a  high  state  of 
cultivation.     That  was  about  1850. 

Question.  Is  any  property  in  the  vicinity  of  Wilkins'  Point  worth 
over  $500  an  acre  ? 

Answer.  None  that  I  know  of,  unless  some  small  plats  with  very 
fine  improvements  upon  them. 

A.  G.  SiLLiMAN  sworn. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  Flushing. 

Question.  How  far  from  this  Wilkins'  Point  property? 

Answer.  About  three  miles. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  that  township? 

Answer.   I  was  born  there,  and  have  resided  there  all  my  life. 

Question.  Are  you  ac(|uainted  with  the  fiarms  and  their  owners 
throughout  the  township  ? 

Answer.  I  am. 

Question.  And  the  value  of  the  farms  ? 

Answer.  Pretty  well. 

Question.  Have  you  held  an  office  that  would  make  you  familiar 
with  those  things? 

Answer.  I  have  been  a  magistrate  there  for  six  or  seven  years.  I 
have  sworn  the  assessors  and  examined  their  books  ;  have  supervised 
the  books,  carried  out  the  amounts,  calculated  for  them,  &c. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  yourself  well  acquainted  with  the  value 
of  property  in  that  township  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  property  which  Mr.  Weissman  sold  to 
the  government  ? 

Answer.  Very  well. 

Question.  What  was  it  worth  in  April  last  for  speculating  pur- 
poses— that  which  the  government  bought? 

Answer.  By  some  it  would  be  considered  the  best,  and  by  others  it 
would  not.  I  think  about  $500  an  acre  would  be  a  very  large  price 
for  it. 


TESTIMONY.  •    257 

Question.  Is  the  portion  purchased  by  Day  worth  as  much  as  the 
other  ? 

Answer.  As  I  have  said  already,  some  would  prefer  the  high  ground 
to  that  location. 

Question.  How  with  yourself? 

Answer.  I  think  I  would  prefer  that  to  what  the  government 
bought. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  acres  the  government  purchased? 

Answer.  Something  over  eighty  acres. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  property  adjoining  this? 

Answer.  I  do.  Allow  me  to  explain.  Property  there  was  held  by 
persons  retired  from  business  and  who  did  not  care  to  sell.  They  put 
a  fictitious  value  upon  their  property.  It  was  divided  up  for  small 
residences  for  retired  merchants.  There  were  gunning,  fishing,  fiue 
clams,  and  oysters  there.  They  put  the  price  up  high  ;  they  did  not 
want  to  sell. 

Question.  What  is  the  general  price  it  is  held  at  along  there? 

Answer.  It  varies  in  regard  to  location.  It  would  not  average  $500 
an  acre,  and  some,  on  account  of  the  residences,  you  cannot  buy  for 
$1,000  an  acre. 

Question.  Has  this  property  been  in  market? 

Answer.  It  has  been  in  market  ever  since  Mr.  Weissman  owned  it. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  maps  of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  have.  I  have  a  map  of  a  part  of  it.  I  have  not 
a  large  map  like  this  one  which  is  upon  the  committee's  table  ;  I  am 
not  sure  that  I  have.  It  frequently  becomes  necessary  to  refer  to 
maps  to  get  boundaries.  I  think  I  have  seen  a  map  similar  to  this, 
if  I  have  not  one  of  them  myself? 

Question.  If  this  property  had  been  in  market,  would  it  have  sold 
for  as  much  in  1856  as  in  1857? 

Answer.  That  would  depend  somewhat  on  circumstances.  If  there 
was  a  forced  sale,  I  do  not  suppose  that  there  would  be  a  great  deal  of 
difi'erence.     Our  property  is  peculiar  ;  it  is  held  by  rich  people. 

Question.  Was  property  selling  for  as  much  in  April,  1856,  as  in 
April,  1857? 

Answer.   It  was. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Weissman,  who  owned  this  property? 

Answer.  I  have  done  some  business  with  him. 

Question.  Did  you  learn  from  him  that  this  property  was  for  sale? 

Answer.  Not  directly. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  negotiations  between  him,  Irving,  or  any  other  party, 
and  the  government  in  relation  to  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Not  directly  ;  not  from  any  of  the  parties.  I  have  talked 
with  the  government  officer.  I  have  conversed  with  Captain  Foster, 
who  was  there  in  charge,  about  the  way  in  which  the  thing  was  got 
up.  It  was  generally  supposed  that  there  had  been  collusion  between 
the  parties.  I  do  not  speak  positively,  but  that  was  the  general  im- 
pression. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  property  at  Cryder's  Point? 

Answer.  I  do.     I  do  not  know  how  many  acres  there  are  in  it. 

H.  Pep,  Com.  549 IT 


258  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Is  it,  in  your  opinion,  as  good  a  position  for  fortification 
purposes  as  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Well,  I  will  give  my  opinion  about  that.  I  always  have 
helieved  that  that  point,  Wilkins'  Point,  which  was  purchased  by  the 
government,  that  in  case  of  difficulty,  all  the  government  would  have 
to  do  would  be  to  take  possession  of  it  and  throw  up  what  are  called 
earthen  works,  or  an  earthen  redoubt.  That  I  think  would  do  all 
the  service  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  government  to  do.  Of 
this  I  have  been  confirmed,  in  my  own  mind,  since  the  trial  of  earthen 
works  at  Sebastopol.  This  is  very  high  ground.  It  overlooks  Fort 
Schuyler.  It  never  can  be  reached  by  a  ship.  It  would  be  very  hard 
for  a  ball  to  enter  the  earth  to  any  distance. 

Question.  What  is  the  depth  of  water  there? 

Answer.  It  runs  off  very  flat.    The  channel  is  way  over  near  the  fort. 

Question.  What  is  the  depth  at  Cryder's  Point? 

Answer.  I  think  the  water  is  deeper.  I  cannot  be  positive,  although 
I  have  gunned  and  fished  there. 

Question.  Was  the  property  at  Cryder's  Point  in  market  for  sale? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  so.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  The  assessors' 
books  held  this  property  at  §28,000  or  $30,000.  We  put  it  up  high— 
fully  two-thirds. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  If  this  property  were  taken  for  public 
uses,  and  you  were  on  a  jury  to  assess  damages,  what  would  you  say 
was  its  value  ? 

Answer.  I  would  be  willing  to  be  liberal  then.  I  would,  under 
those  circumstances,  be  willing  to  allow  $500  an  acre. 

Question.  What  would  be  the  process  in  your  mind  to  make  that 
estimate — the  value  of  surrounding  property,  the  price  at  which  it 
had  been  sold,  and  so  on  ? 

Answer.  What  it  had  been  sold  for  would  not  control  me.  There 
has  never  been  any  fences  upon  this  property.  He  has  done  nothing 
to  it.  He  put  up  a  house  which  will  last  only  for  a  little  while.  He 
has  been  badly  shaved  in  that  house.  The  land  is  not  improved  at 
all.  He  has  never  manured  or  oropped  it.  I  consider  §500  an  acre 
its  full  value. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  You  leave  a  margin? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  do  you  consider  the  worth  of  the  improvements 
upon  that  land,  the  improvements  put  there  since  Mr.  Weissman 
owned  it  ? 

Answer.  I  would  rather  have  it  when  Mr.  Weissman  bought  it  than 
when  it  was  sold  to  the  government. 

Question.  What  is  the  value  of  the  improvements  ? 

Answer.  The  land,  in  my  judgement,  has  depreciated  for  aojricul- 
tural  ])urposes.  The  iences  and  improvements  cost  })robahly  $8,000 
or  $9/)00.     The  barn  is  of  no  consecjuence. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hopkins.)  Do  you  know  of  any  land  fronting 
the  water  which  could  be  now  purchased  for  $500  an  acre? 

•Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  some  was  sold  there  the  other  day — land  upon 
the  bay.  i\Ir.  Mickle  bought  it  for  his  son  ;  12  acres  ;  pretty  high 
land;  looks  up  the  bay.  It  would  not  be  fit  for  fortification  ])urposes, 
like  this  land.     The  12  acres  sold  lor  $4,000,  water  privilege  and  all. 


TESTIMONY.  259 

Question.  Is  the  water  deeper  there  than  in  front  of  the  govern- 
ment property  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not. 

Question.  Is  the  land  in  a  hetter  state  of  cultivation  ? 

Answer.  It  is  about  the  same.     It  has  been  neglected. 

Question.  What  would  be  your  estimate  of  the  difference  of  value 
of  land  fronting  the  water  and  land  back  of  it  ? 

Answer.  We  consider  it,  for  the  purpose  of  residence,  worth  prob- 
ably 25  per  cent,  more  where  it  fronts  on  the  water  than  where  it  is 
back  and  adjoining.  The  difference  too,  would  depend  upon  the  bold- 
ness of  the  water.  This  would  never  be  fit  for  landing  unless  docks 
are  built  out,  except  one  place  where,  they  could  make  a  way  for  a 
small  craft. 

March  4,  1858, 

Charles  A,  Willett,  sworn. 

Question  (by  the  chairman.)  Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  Flushing,  New  York. 

Question.  How  far  from  this  Wilkins'  Point  property  ? 

Answer.  About  three  miles. 

Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  am  in  the  lumber  business. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  property? 

Answer.  Very  well. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  own  it? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  When  did  you  sell  it,  and  to  whom? 

Answer.  I  hired  it.  I  think  I  was  in  possession  of  it  on  the  20th  of 
July,  1847.     This  is  my  deed  to  Jno.  De  Ruyter. 

Question.  Did  you  live  there  all  your  life? 

Answer.  Ever  since  I  can  remember,  except  while  I  was  at  boarding 
school. 

Question.  You  are  well  acquainted  with  the  value  of  this,  and 
property  in  the  neighborhood? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  so. 

Question.  Was  the  consideration  of  $35,500,  expressed  in  that  deed, 
the  consideration  for  that  property  ? 

Answer.  It  was. 

Question.  You  sold  it  the  15th  of  December,  1852  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  many  acres? 

Answer.  The  deed  says  152  acres,  more  or  less.  I  think  that  is  very 
nearly  correct.  It  includes  all  that  point.  The  property  has  been  in 
the  family  some  thirty  years. 

Question.  This  property  is  on  the  point  and  fronts  the  river  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  the  land  Day  purchased  worth  as  much  as  the  other 
parts  of  the  farm,  in  proportion  to  its  extent? 

Answer.  The  front  land,  down  to  the  point,  is  what  I  have  always 


260  TESTIMONY. 

considered  the  best  building  spots  on  the  place.  Here,  where  there  is 
salt  meadow,  it  would  not  be  worth  as  much. 

Question.  Taking  the  whole  land  together,  is  Day's  piece  worth 
as  much  relatively  as  the  other  part? 

Answer.  I  think  it  is. 

Question.  You  sold  to  De  Ruyter  ;  to  whom  did  De  Ruyter  convey 
it? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Is  the  property  fenced  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not. 

Question.  Is  it  improved  ? 

Answer.  There  is  no  improvement  on  it ;  I  had  the  farm,  and 
rented  it  out  from  year  to  year. 

Question.  Was  a  house  put  upon  it  since  you  sold  it  ? 

Answer.  There  is  a  house  built  by  some  parties,  whether  by  Ruy- 
ter, Van  Blankenstein,  or  not,  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  What  style  of  house  is  it  ? 

Answer.  It  is  a  nice  style  of  house. 

Question.  Brick,  stone,  or  wood? 

Answer.  It  is  a  frame  building. 

Question.  What  is  it  worth  ? 

Answer.  May  be  $6,000  or  $7,000  ;  it  may  have  cost  more. 

Question.  Have  you  been  in  the  house  ? 

Answer.  Never. 

Question.  Have  you  been  on  or  near  this  property  within  the  last 
year  ? 

Answer.  We  rode  about  it  when  we  were  making  out  the  assess- 
ment list. 

Question.  You  are  an  assessor  of  the  town  of  Flushing  ? 

Answer.  I  am  ;  that  is  the  only  time  I  have  been  about  the  prop- 
erty for  a  year  ;  I  have  sailed  in  front  of  it. 

Question.  What  was  this  property  assessed  at? 

Answer.  In  the  last  assessment  at  $25,000. 

Question.  That  included  Day's  ? 

Answer.  It  included  all ;  I  hardly  remember,  though  ;  it  was  di- 
vided up  about  that  time  ;  whether  Day's  was  included,  I  cannot 
speak  positively. 

Question.  What  is  the  usual  rate  of  valuation  made  by  the  assessors 
of  Flushing? 

Answer.  We  cannot  very  well  get  at  it.  We  assess  at  two-thirds 
where  we  have  any  data  to  go  on  ;  perhaps  a  little  more  than  two- 
thirds. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  yourself  a  judge  of  the  value  of  this  and 
other  property  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  an  assessor  there  for  three  years  ;  I  have  not 
dealt  in  property  since  I  sold  this  ;  I  presume  that  I  am  a  judge  of 
the  value  of  property  there. 

Question.  What  do  you  consider  this  property  worth,  all,  inclusive 
of  Day's  26  acres? 

Answer.  We  wanted  to  leave  a  margin  of  from  25  to  33^  per  cent, 
in  our  assessment. 


TESTIMONY.  261 

Question.  What  do  you  consider,  not  as  an  assessor,  but  as  a  judge 
of  property  there,  was  the  value  of  this  property  in  April  last? 

Answer.  I  have  no  good  reason  to  believe  that  it  is  worth  anymore 
now  than  when  I  sold  it.  The  property  has  been  in  the  market  ever 
since.     All  Mr.  Weissman  has  sold  is  the  piece  to  Day. 

Question.  The  property  has  been  in  the  market  ever  since  you  sold 
it? 

Answer.  I  think  so. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  Was  it  the  general  understanding  in  the 
vicinity  that  this  property  was  for  sale  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  was  the  motive  in  getting  out  a  map 
dividing  it  up  into  house  lots. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  before  seen  a  map  like  this? 

Answer.  I  have.     I  remember  when  it  was  made  out. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Wood.)  Suppose  your  attention  had  been  called  to 
that  property  in  July  last,  what  offer  would  you  have  made  for  it  ? 

Answer.  My  attention  was  called  to  it,  about  July  last,  in  ar- 
ranging the  assessment  books.  It  is  very  hard  to  put  a  valuation 
upon  a  fancy  place. 

Question.  There  is  a  price  in  your  mind  which  you  would  have 
given  for  it ;  what  is  it  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  want  the  property:  but  I  would  not,  as  a  specu- 
lation, give  for  it  more  than  what  I  got — not  as  much  as  what  I  got. 
I  mean  that  I  would  not  give  that  much  for  the  whole  of  it. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Did  property  sell  as  high  last  April  as 
when  you  sold  it  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  did.  Property  has  been  very  dull,  and  has 
gone  down  there  within  two  years.  Then  it  may  have  gone  up  in  a 
larger  ratio  from  the  time  I  sold  it.  That  increase  may  have  been 
greater  than  the  decrease. 

Question.  Of  your  own  knowledge,  has  Mr.  Weissman  had  this 
property  in  the  market  for  the  last  three  years? 

Answer.  It  has  been  in  market. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  from  Mr.  Weissman  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  remember  ;  Mr.  Weissman  and  myself  may  have 
had  some  words  when  we  met  as  to  the  sale  of  property. 

Question.  When  did  you  see  Mr.  Weissman  last? 

Answer.  We  have  had  several  conversations  on  the  boat  or  in  the  cars. 

Question.  Within  two  years? 

Answer.  Perhaps  once  or  twice. 

Question.  Mr.  Weissman  was  in  possession  of  this  property  at  the 
time? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  remember  going  to  town  one  morning  in  the 
cars  ;  Mr.  Weissman,  I  understood,  had  been  offered  some  $600  or 
$700  an  acre  for  some  of  his  land.  I  saw  Mr.  Weissman  in  the  cars; 
I  told  him  that  I  understood  he  had  an  offer  for  that  property.  I  un- 
derstood that  he  had  refused  it.  He  asked  me  :  Do  you  or  any  of  your 
friends  want  to  buy  that  property  at  that  price  ?  Whether  it  was  a 
Jjonajlde  offer  or  not  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  What  did  you  think  of  it? 


2^2  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  His  asking  me  whether  I  wanted  to  huy  it  for  that,  made 
me  suppose  that  it  was  a  bogus  offer  got  up  for  effect. 

Question.  About  what  time  was  that? 

Answer.  Whether  last  summer  or  the  summer  before  last,  I  do  not 
recollect. 

Question.  Was  this  property,  August,  1856,  worth  as  much  as  in 
April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  suppose  it  was  ;  but  property  was  not  selling  so  readily 
in  1857  as  in  1856.  The  property  around  Flushing  is  owned  by  men, 
who,  if  they  do  not  get  their  price,  let  it  remain. 

Question.  Considering  the  value  of  adjacent  property  and  the  price 
at  which  it  is  held,  what  is  a  large  price  for  this  per  acre,  taking  the 
quantity  purchased  by  the  government? 

Answer.  50  per  cent,  added  to  what  I  sold  it  for  per  acre  would  be 
a  large  round  price  ;  that  is,  including  the  whole. 

Question.  What  was  the  property  worth  in  April  last,  taking  all 
the  outhouses,  fences^  &c.  ? 

Answer.  The  fences  were  not  worth  as  much  as  firewood.  All  that 
was  worth  anything  was  Mr.  Weissman's  house. 

Question.  At  a  liberal  allowance,  what  were  the  improvements 
worth  ? 

Answer.  $10,000  or  $15,000  would  be  a  very  liberal  allowance. 
Outside  of  the  house,  I  do  not  think  the  other  improvements  were 
worth  anything:. 

Question.  What  is  the  depth  of  water  in  front  of  this  property? 

Answer.  At  low  water  mark  it  is  bare. 

Question.   Is  the  channel  nearer  the  Fort  Schuyler  side? 

Ans\^er.  It  is  on  the  Fort  Schuyler  altogether. 

Question.   How  near  could  a  vessel-of-war  approach  this  land  ? 

Answer.  She  could  not  get  near  any  of  the  property  except,  per- 
haps, the  point  to  the  north.  How  near  she  could  get  there  I  never 
ascertained. 

Question.  How  far  do  the  flats  extend  from  the  shore? 

Answer.  I  could  not  tell.  The  bay  is  flat  all  the  way  across.  I  do 
not  think  there  is  20  feet  of  water  there  anywhere. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  sale  of  this  property  by 
Irving  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  any  of  the  facts  about  it. 

Question.  Has  Mr.  Irving  or  any  other  party  conversed  with  you 
on  the  subject? 

Answer.  They  have  not.  Mr.  Wetmore,  (Wm.  C.  Wetmore,)  told 
me  wlien  he  thouglit  the  money  would  be  ready.     He  paid  me. 

Question.  When  was  tliis  satisfaction  price,  dated  3d  August,  1857, 
paid  ? 

Answer.  It  was  paid  somewhere  about  the  first  of  August ;  lean- 
not  pay  as  to  the  very  day. 

Question.  Was  it  earlier  or  later  than  the  1st  of  August  ? 

Answer.  It  was  paid  tlie  day  the  satisfaction  price  was  acknow- 
ledged. 

Question.    Whoi)aidyou? 

Answer.  W.  C.  Wetmore. 


TESTIMONY.  263 

Question.  How  much  ? 

Answer.  §8,000.  It  was  a  balance  of  the  original  purchase  money ; 
my  mother  had  a  mortgage. 

Question.  Was  that  paid  ? 

Answer.  Both  were  paid  the  same  day  ;  one  at  New  York,  the  other 
at  Flushing. 

Question.  Who  paid  it  at  Flushing  ? 

Answer.  Mr,  W.  C  Wetmore.  I  presume  hers  was  paid  by  him  ; 
I  knew  that  mine  was. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  This  map  was  made  for  the  purpose  of 
hasteninoj  the  sale  of  this  land,  which  was  in  the  market  ? 

Answer.  I  would  not  like  to  say  that  it  was ;  that  is  my  impression ; 
I  have  seen  a  map,  laying  the  place  out  in  house  lots. 

Question.  How  long  ago? 

Answer.  It  may  be  two  or  four  years  ago.  I  have  never  had  my  at- 
tention called  to  the  matter  before. 

Question.  Do  you  think  you  saw  it  two  years  ago? 

Answer.  I  think  I  have. 

Question.  Any  time  within  the  time  you  recollect,  what  do  you 
think  would  be  the  outside  value  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  As  I  have  said  already,  50  per  cent,  on  what  I  got  for 
it. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  There  is  a  piece  of  land  reserved 
after  the  sale  to  Day  and  to  the  government ;  who  owns  it  ? 

Answer.  I  understand  Mr.  Weissman  does ;  he  reserved  the  gate  lot. 
I  will  not  be  positive  that  he  owns  it. 

Question.  How  much  is  in  the  gate  lot? 

Answer,  Nine  or  ten  acres. 

Question.  Do  you  know  where  Cryder's  Point  is? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  is  off  perhaps  three  quarters  of  a  mile.  It  is 
on  the  Queens  county  side. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  acres  there  are  in  it  ?  ' 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  value  of  that  property?  What  could 
it  have  been  purchased  for  any  time  during  the  last  year  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  Suppose  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point 
should  be  taken  for  public  uses  and  you  were  on  the  jury  to  assess 
damages,  what  value  would  you  attach  to  it? 

Answer.  My  impression  at  the  time  was,  that  Mr.  Weissman  would 
get  $75,000  or  §80,000  for  it. 

Question.  Would  you  agree  to  make  an  award  of  that  sum  after 
the  appropriation  by  Congress  ? 

Answer.  Perhaps. 

Question.  But  suppose  there  was  no  appropriation? 

Answer.  If  I  should  go  to  appraise  it,  I  should  not  appraise  it  more 
than  25  per  cent,  higher  than  the  price  upon  the  assessment  roll  ;  that 
is,  if  I  were  bound  by  the  same  obligation  that  I  am  in  making  the 
assessment  roll.  That  is  the  price  at  which  we  would  appraise  it  to 
pay  a  debt. 


264  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Has  Mr.  Weissman  spent  anything  in  manuring  and  im- 
proving tlie  condition  of  the  land  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  has  spent  a  dollar. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  Did  Mr.  Weissman  have  this  place  as  a 
residence,  or  was  it  only  a  summer  resort? 

Answer.  I  think  he  was  there  one  or  two  winters. 

March  15,  1858. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock.  Present — The  Chairman,  (Mr. 
Haskin,)  Mr.  Wood,  and  Mr.  Hall. 

William  Turner,  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman: 

I  reside  near  Flushing,  Long  Island,  and  within  a  few  miles  of 
Wilkins'  Point.  I  am  familiar  with  the  property  there  purchased  by 
the  government  for  fortification  purposes.  I  am  also  familiar  with 
Cryder's  Point.  I  called  at  the  engineer  bureau  here  about  the  middle 
of  March,  to  ascertain  what  was  being  done  with  the  appropriation 
made  for  the  commencement  of  a  fortification  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 
I  considered  Cryder's  Point  a  good  site  for  the  fortification,  and  I 
offered  to  sell  it  for  $120,000.  I  had  authority  to  sell  it  for  that  sum, 
and  could  have  sold  it  for  less.  The  Wilkins'  Point  property  was  owned 
by  Mr.  Weissman,  who  lived  upon  it,  and  who  had  it  in  the  market  for 
sale  for  several  years.  He  had  it  mapped  out  in  plats  for  villa  sites, 
and  some  of  these  plats  were  a  great  deal  more  valuable  than  others. 
1  know  that  part  of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  which  Mr.  Henry  Day 
purchased  from  Mr.  Weissman.  It  is  taken  out  of  the  best  land  in 
the  place,  and  I  consider  it  as  valuable  as  any  other  part  of  it.  I  know 
nothing  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  sale  and 
purchase  of  this  property  by  the  government  except  from  rumor.  The 
whole  tract,  laid  out  in  plats,  as  it  was  in  April,  1857,  was  worth,  in 
my  judgment,  from  $400  to  $800  an  acre.  Since  the  goverment  pur- 
chased this  property  I  have  called  on  Mr.  Collector  Schell,  but  have 
had  no  conversation  with  him  in  reference  to  the  sale  of  this  property 
to  the  government.  Since  the  sale  of  the  property  to  the  government 
I  purchased  a  small  lot,  not  a  quarter  of  an  acre  in  extent,  out  of  the 
Weissman  farm^  or  adjoining  it.  I  purchased  it  for  public  purposes, 
to  erect  a  store  upon  it. 

C.  P.  LowEREE,  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  (Mr.  Haskin  :) 

I  reside  in  the  village  of  Flushing,  county  of  Queens,  New  York. 
I  keep  a  store  there  ;  and  sometimes  act  as  a  real  estate  auctioneer 
and  agent.  I  have  known  the  Wilkins'  Point  property,  owned  by 
Mr.  Weissman,  all  my  life.  I  liad  a  mortgage  upon  it,  which  was 
paid  off  in  July,  1857.  The  property  was  purchased  by  Mr.  De  Ruyter 
of  Mr.  Willetts  in  1852  ;  it  then  contained  152  acres,  and  Mr.  De 
Ruyter  paid  $35,500  for  it.  I  have  known  Mr.  Weissman  for  several 
years  ;  he  is  the  son-in-law  of  Mr.  De  Ruyter.     He  had  the  property 


TESTIMONY.  265 

laid  out  in  villa  sites  and  mapped,  and  had  it  in  the  market  for  sale,  I 
think,  from  the  time  he  purchased  it  down  to  the  time  he  conveyed  it 
to  Mr.  Irving.  The  property  was  assessed,  by  the  assessors  of  Flush- 
ings at  $28,000 ;  but  they  do  not  assess  property  at  more  than  two- 
thirds  its  value.  I  consider  the  property  worth  about  $500  an  acre, 
takin g  the  whole  together .  Some  pieces  of  it  are  worth  more  than  others , 
in  consequence  of  their  having  water  fronts  and  commanding  positions. 
There  is  considerable  low  land  in  the  rear  portion  of  the  property. 
I  know  Cryder's  Point ;  it  is  nearer  New  York,  and  there  are  finer 
improvements  upon  it  than  upon  the  Wilkins'  Point  property.  I  do 
not  think  the  land  was  improved  during  the  time  Mr.  Weissman 
owned  and  occupied  it.  The  fences  around  it  were  not  worth  any- 
thing, but  the  house  was  a  pretty  good  house  ;  it  was  built  by  Mr. 
Weissman  and  cost  about  $8,000  ;  the  barn  and  fences  could  not  be 
considered  worth  much.  (The  satisfaction  piece  of  mortgage  was  here 
shown  witness.)  This  is  the  satisfaction  price  which  I  gave  when  the 
money  was  paid  to  me  in  satisfaction  of  the  mortgage.  The  money 
was  paid  to  me  by  William  C.  Wetmore,  who  called  on  me  at  Flush- 
ing,  and  gave  me  a  check  for  the  amount  on  the  3d  day  of  July,  1857 ; 
property  did  not  sell  as  readily  in  the  spring  of  1857  as  in  the  spring 
of  1856,  nor  did  it  bring  any  more  in  the  market.  I  do  not  know 
who  were  the  parties  interested  in  the  sale  of  this  property  except 
from  rumor. 

Simeon  Draper,  sworn. 

Question.   Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  business? 

Answer.  In  the  city  of  New  York.  I  am  a  commission  broker  and 
real  estate  auctioneer. 

Question.  Do  you  know  property  on  Willett's  Point,  Long  Island, 
purchased  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question.  Have  you  at  any  time,  and  when,  had  that  property  of- 
fered to  you  for  sale,  and  by  whom,  and  under  what  circumstances? 
Please  slate  all  you  know  in  relation  to  it. 

Answer.  The  holder  of  the  property  two  years  ago  made  application 
to  me  to  sell  the  property? 

Question.  His  name? 

Answer.  Mr.  Weissman.  I  was  not  able  to  find  anybody  to  buy  it. 
Nothing  transpired  between  him  and  myself,  except  he  offered  to  sell 
the  property. 

Question.  To  whom  did  he  want  to  sell  the  property? 

Answer.  To  whoever  would  buy  it.  The  idea  then  was  to  make 
country  seats  out  of  it.  He  asked,  I  think,  at  that  time  some  five  or 
six  hundred  doHars  an  acre  for  the  whole  concern. 

Question.   Do  you  recollect  how  many  acres? 

Answer.  I  think  140  or  150  acres? 

Question.  He  asked  that  price  for  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  at  that  time.  Afterwards,  there  was  a  move- 
ment made  in  Congress  to  make  a  fort  on  the  point,  and  after  that 
movement  he  called  on  me  again,  and  gave  me  a  bond  to  sell  it  for 
$117,000,  intending  that  I  should  sell  it  to  the  government. 

Question.  That  was  alter  the  act  had  passed? 


266  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  did  nothing  about  it_,  however,  further  than 
write  Colonel  Fish,  asking  him  whether  the  government  had  any  idea 
of  buying  it,  and  he  advised  me  that  no  appropriation  had  been  made 
for  it;  that  it  had  been  suggested  by  the  heads  of  departments,  and 
that  no  doubt  an  appropriation  would  be  made  for  its  purchase 
eventually.  I  held  on  to  the  bond  for  some  time,  and  at  length  gave 
it  to  Mr.  Weissman,  and  he  tore  it  up.  That  ended  our  negotiations. 
I  think  it  was  about  this  month  two  years  ago  that  he  gave  me  au- 
thority to  sell  to  the  government. 

Question.  About  what  time  was  it  that  you  returned  Mr.  Weiss- 
man  the  written  offer  to  sell  he  had  given  you? 

Answer.  After  the  change  of  administrations  the  papers  were 
withdrawn  from  me  and  placed  in  other  hands,  I  suppose. 

Question.  By  Mr.  Weissman? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  in  whose  hands  the  papers  were  j)laced  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  the  parties  are  who  were  interested  in 
the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  Only  from  accounts  of  the  transaction  which  I  have  seen. 

Question.     You  do  not  know  of  your  own  personal  knowledge  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  property? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  very  well.  I  know  all  about  it.  I  did  own  the 
other  point,  consisting  of  110  acres,  myself. 

Question.  What  did  you  pay  for  your  point  ? 

Answer.  I  sold  it  twenty  years  ago.  The  opposite  point  on  Long 
Island  Sound  is  still  further  south  ;  it  is  called  Cryder's  Point,  and 
was  sold  ten  years  ago  for  $120  an  acre. 

Question.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  value  of  the  property,  what 
do  you  consider  that  this  land  at  Wilkins'  Point  was  worth  in  April, 
1857? 

Answer.  I  suppose  the  plat  of  ground  could  have  been  had  for  less 
than  $50,000. 

Question.   What  is  your  estimate  of  the  value  of  it  in  April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  suppose  the  property  as  it  stood  then  was  worth  about 
$50,000. 

Question.  That  is  the  whole  tract  ? 

Answer.  The  whole  concern,  without,  of  course,  considering  the 
government  in  the  matter  at  all  ;  its  desire  to  purchase  it  gave  it 
additional  value. 

Question.   Do  you  mean  the  150  acres? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  whole  property. 

Question.  What  do  you  consider  Cryder's  Point  was  worth  in  April, 
1857? 

Answer.  I  should  consider  it  worth  about  the  same. 

Question.  The  110  acres  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir  ;  thoy  would  have  been  wortli  nearly  tlie  same. 

Question.  Is  not  Cryder's  Point  considered  more  valuable  than 
Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  has  always  been  considered  much  more  valu- 


TESTIMONY.  267 

able,  because  nearer  the  city  and  more  accessible  by  steamboat,  there 
being  a  landing  near  there  ;  the  other  is  a  good  distance  from  any 
steamboat  landing. 

Question.  How  is  the  water-front  at  Cryder's  Point  and  Wilkins' 
Point  ? 

Answer.  If  my  recollection  serves  me  right,  the  channel  makes  in 
nearer  Cryder's  Point  than  at  Wilkins'  Point ;  the  water  at  Wilkins' 
Point  I  think  is  more  shallow  ;  the  shore  is  covered  by  boulders,  the 
sand  having  been  washed  out. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  value  of  Cryder's  Point  for 
fortification  proposed  ;  is  it  as  good  as  Wilkins'  Point  or  not  ? 

Answer.  I  never  examined  it  with  the  view  of  giving  such  an  opinion; 
I  suppose  that  probably  Wilkins'  Point  would  be  nearer  the  rake  of 
vessels  coming  around  the  fort ;  there  was  a  fort  at  Cryder's  Point, 
and  a  part  of  it  still  remains  there. 

Question.  That  was  the  redoubt  thrown  up  during  the  revolutionary 
war? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  facts  or  circumstances  connected  with 
the  sale  and  purchase  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  at  all. 

T.  S.  Draper,  sworn. 

Question.  Where  is  your  residence,  and  what  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  My  residence  is  New  York  ;  I  am  a  broker. 

Question.  Do  you  know  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  of  this  property  having  been  for  sale  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a  party  of  four  who  proposed  to  buy  a  portion 
of  it  some  two  and  a  half  years  ago  ;  my  brother  William,  Charles 
Clark,  H.  H.  Elliott,  and  myself.  We  had  an  interview  with  Mr. 
Weissman  on  the  subject,  intending  to  purchase  a  portion  of  it  for 
the  purpose  of  building  country  residences.  He  then  offered  us  a  por- 
tion of  it,  with  a  front  on  the  river  running  down  to  the  water,  for 
$500  an  acre,  and  was  anxious  to  make  an  inducement  to  us  to  pur- 
chase, for  the  sake  of  improving  the  property.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
we  could  have  selected  our  sites  with  water  fronts,  in  ten-acre  plots,  at 
$400  an  acre. 

Question.  Was  the  property  worth  then  as  much  as  it  was  in  April, 
1857? 

Answer.  Tlie  property  had  not  been  built  on  except  by  Mr.  De 
Ruyter,  Mr.  Weissman's  father-in-law.  The  property  was  owned  at 
the  time  by  Mr.  Weissman's  wife,  and  he  was  very  anxious  to  sell. 

Question.  I  ask  you  whether  you  consider  that  the  property  was 
worth  as  much  then  as  in  April,  1857  ? 

Answer.  It  was  as  valuable  then  for  all  the  purposes  we  intended 
using  it  as  it  was  in  April,  1857.  Considering  the  times,  the  land 
could  not  have  brought  as  much  in  1857,  if  it  had  not  been  bought  by 
the  government.  I  never  knew  of  there  being  any  rise  in  the  value 
of  the  property,  and  I  should  not  have  given  more  for  it  at  any  time 


268  TESTIMONY. 

since  I  proposed  buying  it,  except  I  had  purchased  it  for  speculation 
at  some  future  time. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  were  interested  in  the  sale  and  pur- 
chase of  that  property  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  I  do  not.  I  know  nothing  about  it,  except  what 
Weissman  told  me.     He  said  that  Mr.  Irving  purchased  from  him. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Cryder's  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  very  well. 

Question.  What  is  the  value  of  it  compared  with  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Cryder's  Point  is  more  valuable  than  Wilkins'  Point  now, 
because  it  has  been  thoroughly  cultivated  and  improved,  and  built 
upon,  whilst  Weissman's  has  not. 

Question.  Is  not  Cryder's  Point  nearer  the  city  than  Wilkins' 
Point,  and  more  valuable  on  that  account  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  because  it  is  nearer  a  ferry  and  got  at  with- 
out much  trouble  ;  whilst  you  have  to  drive  around  some  two  miles 
from  any  ferry  to  get  at  the  other. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not,  after  your  interview  with 
Mr.  Weissman  in  relation  to  purchasing  this  property,  he  continued 
to  have  it  in  the  market  for  sale  until  it  was  purchased  by  the  gov- 
ernment ? 

Answer.  I  never  knew  of  his  withdrawing  it  from  the  market.  My 
brother  William  had  more  to  do  with  it  than  I  had.  He  desired  to 
purchase  it  himself,  and  carried  on  all  the  negotiations  with  Mr. 
Weissman. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that  Mr.  W^eissman  had  the  property 
in  the  market? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  so  far  as  my  knowledge  of  it  goes,  I  understood 
that  he  always  had  it  in  the  market. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  sale  to  and  purchase  of  this  property  by  the  govern- 
ment? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Schell,  Mr. 
Wetmore,  or  any  other  person  on  the  subject? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  Mr.  Richard  Schell  called  on  me  on  Monday  last, 
and  told  me  that  he  had  heard  in  the  New  York  hotel  that  I  had 
been  subjjojnaed  to  appear  before  this  committee,  and  asked  me  what 
I  knew  about  the  matter.  I  repeated  to  him  what  I  have  testified 
here. 

Question.  State  the  wliole  of  that  conversation  ? 

Answer.  That  is  all. 

Question.  At  the  time  Mr.  Weissman  made  the  proposition  to  you 
four  gentlemen  to  sell  you  fourteen-acre  plats,  at  $400  an  acre,  did 
he  impose  any  conditions  upon  you  in  relation  to  improving  them? 

Answer.  That  was  the  understanding,  although  he  did  not  expect 
us  to  do  it  immediately,  lie  knew  that  if  we  bought,  we  did  so  for 
the  purpose  of  building  first  class  houses  on  the  property.  The  usual 
understanding  was  had  that  none  of  us  was  to  put  up  a  nuisance  ; 
that  was  the  condition  upon  which  the  point  was  to  be  laid  out,  that 


TESTIMONY.  269 

no  man  who  took  any  part  of  it  should  be  permitted  to  erect  a  nuisance, 
and  interfere  with  any  of  the  owners. 

Question.  I  thought  conditions  might  have  been  put  upon  you  to 
improve  the  proj^erty  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  the  conditions  merely  were,  that  good  style 
houses  should  be  placed  upon  it.  A  pig-stye  could  not  have  been  put 
upon  it,  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Question.  It  was  understood  that  he  offered  you  the  ten-acre  plats 
at  that  price,  with  the  view  of  enhancing  the  adjoining  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  the  forty  acres  he  offered  you  comprise  the  best  part 
of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  We  were  left  free  to  select  them  along  the  water  front, 
wherever  we  chose. 

Question.  Did  you  not  consider  these  forty  acres  the  most  valuable 
of  the  whole  property  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a  swamp  running  on  the  back  part  of  the  prop- 
erty, and  the  grounds  in  rear  of  the  plats  we  would  have  selected 
would  have  been  of  very  little  value. 

Question.  How  many  acres  were  covered  with  a  swamp  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know. 


Washington,  March  12,  1858. 

Committee  met  at  11  o'clock.  Present — Messrs.  Haskin,  Hopkins, 
and  Hall. 

Major  J.  G.  Barnard,  sworn,  examined  by  the  chairman,  and  testi- 
fied as  follows  : 

I  am  connected  with  the  United  States  army  and  am  stationed  in 
the  city  of  New  York.  I  have  charge  of  all  the  fortifications  in  the 
New  York  harbor,  and  have  had  charge  of  them  since  November, 
1856.  My  attention  was  officially  called  to  the  appropriation  for  the 
commencement  of  a  fortification  opposite  Fort  Schuyler  early  in 
March  last,  by  a  note,  marked  '^^ confidential,''  received  from  J.  G. 
Totten,  chief  of  the  engineer  bureau  here.  I  first  took  measures  to 
ascertain  the  value  of  the  land,  after  I  received  this  letter,  by  ascer- 
taining what  the  owners  in  the  neighborhood  held  their  land  at.  I 
called  upon  Mr.  Cryder,  Mr.  Stewart  Brown,  and  Mr.  Haggerty,  to 
ascertain  the  valuation  they  put  upon  their  lands,  and  at  the  same 
time  I  caused  Weissman,  the  owner  of  Wilkins'  Point_,  to  ascertain 
the  terms  upon  which  he  would  sell  to  the  government.  A  friend  of 
mine,  a  Mr.  D.  Van  Nostrand,  of  New  York  city,  at  my  request  and 
on  behalf  of  the  government,  called  upon  and  saw  Weissman  within 
a  few  days  after  the  receipt  of  the  letter  dated  the  12th  of  March.  He 
saw  Mr.  Weissman  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Day.  Mr.  Weissman  stated 
his  terms  to  be  $120,000  for  the  whole  tract  and  improvements,  and  he 
made  a  distinct  offer  to  take  this  sum  for  the  whole  tract  of  land  and 
improvements.  Mr.  Day  was  also  consulted  by  Van  Nostrand.  I  then 
addressed  a  letter,  giving  the  results  of  the  inquiries,  dated  March 


270  TESTIMONY. 

24, 1857. — (See  Gov.  Floyd's  testimony.)  General  Totten,  after  the  re- 
ceipt of  this  letter,  refused  to  give  me  authority  to  give  $100,000  for  the 
property,  because  the  price  was  too  exorbitant,  without  an  appraisement 
and  condemnation.  He  then  directed  me  to  proceed  to  Albany  and  have 
a  bill  passed  for  the  condemnation  of  the  property.  In  pursuance  of 
his  directions,  I  first  proceeded  to  Wilkins'  Point,  in  company  with 
John  W.  Lawrence.  The  result  of  my  inspection  and  consultations 
there  confirmed  me  in  the  opinion  that  the  $100,000  for  the  property 
was  a  liberal  sum  for  the  government  to  pay,  though  not  an  extrava- 
gant one.  This  was  on  the  27th  or  28th  of  March,  1857.  After 
going  there  with  Lawrence,  I  addressed  another  letter  to  the  engineer 
bureau  confirming  my  first  statement  as  to  the  value  of  the  land,  &c.^ 
and  in  which  I  said  I  had  asked  Lawrence  what  he  would  appraise 
the  land  and  improvements  at  if  he  were  put  upon  a  jury  to  condemn 
it  for  the  government,  and  he  said  $100,000.  Lawrence  said  he  had 
seen  Weissman,  and  he  had  shown  him  a  memorandum  of  a  condi- 
tional agreement  to  sell  to  Irving  in  the  event  of  the  government  not 
purchasing  by  the  1st  of  April.  I  saw  that  there  appeared  to  be 
operations  of  speculators  to  get  hold  of  the  land,  and  that  if  they  did 
the  government  might  probably  have  to  pay  more  for  it. 

This  agreement  was  to  go  into  eff'ect  on  the  1st  of  April,  unless  the 
government  previously  purchased  the  land.  This  was  about  the  27th 
or  28th  of  March.  If  I  went  to  Albany,  the  probability  would  be 
that  it  would  be  too  late  for  the  government  to  purchase.  Therefore 
I  stated  these  circumstances  to  the  chief  engineer.  I  stated  that  if 
the  land  was  not  secured,  as  I  believed  it  could  be  then,  that  this 
condition  of  sale  would  take  effect,  and  the  government  would  not  be 
able  to  get  it  except  at  an  enhanced  price.  I  waited  a  reply  from  the 
chief  engineer.  He  confirmed  his  first  directions.  On  the  30th  of 
March  I  became  so  impressed  with  the  importance  of  securing  this 
property  that  I  wrote  him  another  letter,  stating  very  strongly  the 
necessity  of  securing  that  property  at  $100,000,  for  which  I  believed 
it  could  be  got ;  and  the  next  day  I  requested  him,  by  telegraph,  to 
lay  my  letter  before  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  to  telegraph  me  his 
reply.  The  telegraphic  reply  confirmed  the  previous  declarations, 
and  directed  me  to  go  to  Albany.  I  went  to  Albany,  and  obtained 
the  act  of  condemnation.     That  terminated  my  action. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  have  anything  more  to  do 
with  this  transaction,  either  with  Weissman  or  other  parties  at  Wash- 
ington ? 

Answer.  Nothing  whatever.  I  wrote  a  letter  some  time  about  the 
15th  of  April,  stating  that  I  believed  the  Cryder  property  could  be 
got  on  lower  terms  tlian  I  had  before  stated.  It  was  well  to  know 
that,  in  reference  to  i'urther  negotiations  for  the  Willett's  Neck 
property. 

Question.  Did  you  negotiate  for  the  Cryder  property? 

Answer.  I  had  caused  ]\Ir.  Cryder  to  be  consulted. 

(,)ucstion.   Wliat  couhl  you  have  got  his  property  for? 

Answer.  In  that  letter  I  stated  that  I  believed  it  could  be  got  for 
$80,000. 

Question.  How  many  acres  ? 


TESTIMONY.  271 

Answer.  About  seventy. 

Question.  A  sufficient  number  for  a  fortification  ? 

Answer.  It  would  be  enougb. 

Question.  Is  Cryder's  a  good  location  for  a  fortification? 

Answer.  Not  as  good  as  Willett's  Neckj  but  it  is  a  good  position. 
A  fort  migbt  be  put  tbere,  but  it  would  not  be  as  well  situated  as  at 
Willett's  Neck. 

Question.  You  bave  spoken  of  consulting  Haggerty  and  Stewart 
Brown,  and  Cryder — what  value  did  Haggerty  and  Stewart  Brown  put 
on  their  property  ;  and  are  not  theirs  fancy  places,  with  fine  improve- 
ments on  them  ? 

Answer.  Cryder's  and  Stewart  Brown's  are  ;  Haggerty's  is  not. 
Hagarty's  is  not  extensively  improved.     It  is  desirable  land. 

Question.  What  price  did  Haggerty  and  Stewart  Brown  put  on  their 
property  ? 

Answer.  Haggerty  was  willing  to  sell  at  $700  or  |800  an  acre. 
Cryder  was  willing  to  sell  at  $1,000  and  the  actual  cost  of  his  im- 
provements.    Stewart  Brown  the  same. 

Question.  How  many  acres  had  Stewart  Brown  ? 

Answer.  I  think  about  thirty-five. 

Question.  Did  his  join  Cryder's? 

Answer.  It  did. 

Question.  Did  Haggerty's  join  Cryder's? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  on  the  other  side. 

Question.  How  many  acres  had  Haggerty  ? 

Answer.   Over  one  hundred.     It  was  not  well  situated  for  the  work. 

Question.  Is  the  land  owned  by  those  men,  compared  with  that  at 
Wilkins'  Point,  poorer  or  better  ?  I  mean  agriculturally  and  in  every 
other  respect. 

Answer.  Agriculturally,  it  is  about  the  same.  The  great  value  of 
these  lands  is  for  country  residences.  In  tliat  respect,  I  think  they 
are  about  the  same. 

Question.  They  are  nearer  New  York  ;  how  far  from  Wilkins' 
Point? 

Answer.  There  cannot  be  more  than  a  mile  difference. 

Question.  Can  you  state  the  reason  why  this  property  was  not  con- 
demned after  the  act  was  obtained  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  idea.  Tlie  reason  why  I  was  not  authorized  to 
ofi'er  $100,000  was  that  neither  the  Secretary  of  War  nor  the  chief 
engineer  were  willing  to  pay  that  sum  without  judicial  appraisement. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  On  the  ground  of  its  being  too  high? 

Answer.  They  thought  that  it  was  too  high.  It  was  a  very  large 
sum,  and  they  did  not  wish  to  take  the  responsibility  of  paying  it 
without  judicial  proceedings. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  from  any  official  communication  with 
General  Totten,  the  Secretary  of  War,  or  any  one  connected  with  the 
department,  the  reason  for  not  condemning  this  land  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Has  it  always  been  customary  where 
property  is  thus  taken  for  fortification  purposes,  for  negotiations  for 
the  purchase  to  be  made  through  the  engineer  department? 


272  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  usually.  In  almost  every  instance  I  have  known 
there  has  been  an  officer  in  charge  of  the  work. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  the  army? 

Answer.  Twenty-five  years  ;  twenty-nine,  I  might  say. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  an  engineer  in  charge  of  forti- 
fications and  other  public  works  ? 

Answer.  About  twenty  years. 

Question.  Are  the  letters  I  have  shown  you  the  only  ones  you  have 
written  to  the  department  on  the  subject,  so  far  as  you  can  recollect? 

Answer.  I  have  said  that  Mr.  Weissman  made  a  distinct  ofier — 
not  to  me  directly,  but  to  my  friend,  Mr.  Van  Nostrand — at  |1,000 
an  acre,  or  at  the  round  price  of  $120,000.  I  do  not  see  that  stated 
in  my  letters.  I  asked  permission  to  be  authorized  to  give  $100,000. 
I  was  firmly  convinced  that  I  could  get  it  for  that  sum.  Mr.  Weiss- 
man  knew  that  was  my  limit.  He  wished  to  know,  on  the  last  day 
March,  whether  I  had  authority  to  give  $100,000.  Mr.  Weissman 
was  at  Van  Nostrand's  office  half  a  dozen  times  to  know  whether  I  had 
authority  to  give  that.  I  knew  that  on  that  day  I  could  have  got  the 
property  for  that  price.  This  was  about  the  31st  of  March.  This 
was  the  last  day  we  had  to  make  a  bargain.  The  conditional  agree- 
ment with  Irving  was  to  take  effect  next  day. 

Question.  You  received  no  such  authority? 

Answer.  The  authority  was  withheld,  although  I  stated  my  convic- 
tions, as  strongly  as  I  could,  that  I  could  get  the  property  on  that  day 
for  $100j000,  and  that  if  I  did  not  get  it  then,  the  government  would 
have  to  pay  an  extravagant  price  for  it. 

Question.  Who,  besides  Weissman,  did  you  see  in  relation  to  this 
property  ? 

Answer.  Weissman  was  the  only  proprietor  I  recollect  to  have  seen. 
Inquiries  of  others  were  made  principally  by  my  friend,  Mr.  Van 
Nostrand.  I  thcughtl  could  get  the  information  better  through  him 
than  if  I  were  to  go  myself  as  the  authorized  agent  of  the  government  ? 

Question.  When  was  the  first  time  you  saw  Irving  in  relation  to 
this  matter  ? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  Irving. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 
,   Answer.  I  never  saw  him. 

Question.  Did  any  come  to  Bowling  Green  treat  of  this  matter? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  parties  who  were  interested  in  this 
purchase  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  only  know  Irving  from  seeing  his  name.  It 
was  in  his  name  that  the  memorandum  of  agreement  was  made. 

Question.  You  have  said  that  this  property  might  fall  into  the  hands 
of  speculators,  and  then  the  government  be  compelled  to  pay  more  for 
it  than  you  could  get  it  for  on  the  31st  of  March  ;  who  were  the  specu- 
lators you  referred  to  ? 

Answer.  Irving  was  the  only  one  of  whom  I  knew.  I  had  no  par- 
ticular person  in  view.  I  supposed  there  were  other  parties  interested 
in  the  matter. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  any  of  the  parties? 


TESTIMONY.  273 

Answef .  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  learn  from  Irving,  or  any  of  the  parties,  who 
"Were  the  persons  connected  with  the  transaction  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  ever  heard  the  name  of  the  party 
mentioned,  except  Schell.  I  have  understood  that  there  were  seven 
persons.     That  is  all  I  know  ahout  it. 

Question.  From  whom  did  you  understand  that  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  be  positive,  but  I  think  it  was  J.  W.  Lawrence. 
I  saw  him  after  we  had  heard  that  the  property  had  been  bought  for 
$20,000. 

Question.  If  I  mentioned  the  names  of  the  seven,  would  you  be 
likely  to  recollect  them? 

Answer.  I  think  I  never  inquired  their  names. 

Question.  V/as  Mr.  Schell's  name  mentioned? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  his  name  mentioned  ? 

Question.  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.   Mr.  Irvin^;  was  also  known  to  be  in. 

Question.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  I  have  known  of  him  as  having  something  to  do  with  this 
transaction  ;  whether  he  was  one  of  the  seven  purchasers  I  do  not» 
know. 

Question.  Mr.  John  C.  Mather? 

Answer.  I  think  I  did  not  hear  his  name. 

Question.  Ed.  Croswell? 

Answer.  Never  heard  of  him» 

Question.   Mr.  Latham.? 

Answer.  Nor  of  him. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Latham  ever  call  at  your  office  in  relation  to 
this? 

Answer.  He  did  not. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  Latham  at  your  office  during  the  months  of 
March  or  April,  1857? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Try  and  recollect  from  v/hom  you  derived  this  informa- 
tion as  to  the  seven. 

Answer.  I  think,  as  I  have  said,  that  I  heard  J.  W,  Lawrence  say 
that  there  were  seven  interested. 

Question.  Did  your  friend.  Van  Nostrand,  say  anything  on  the  sub- 
ject? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  him  speak  of  it ;  I  cannot  recollect  what  he 
said  ;  lie  knew  there  were  several  parties. 

Question.  Are  you  a  judge  of  the  value  of  property  at  Wilkins* 
Point  and  the  vicinity? 

Answer.  The  only  information  I  have  is  what  I  got  specially  for 
this  purpose. 

Question*  At  what  time  v/as  the  act  passed  at  Albany? 

Answer.  Fifteenth  of  April. 
""  Question  (by  Mr.  Hall. )  You  say  at  one  time  you  could  have  obtained 
this  property  for  $100,000.     Upon  what  was  your  impression  based? 

Answer.  It  was  based  upon  his  knowledge  that  that  was  my  limit ; 
that  I  asked  authority  to  give  that ;  that  1  waited  for  an  answer  on 
H.  Rep.  Cora.  549 18 


274  TESTIMONY. 

the  31st  of  Marcli,  and  that  he  was  in  my  friend  Van  Ko^trand's 
office  half  a  dozen  times,  appearing  anxious  to  know  whether  I  had 
obtained  the  authority.     He  had  made  a  distinct  offer  of  |120,000. 

Henry  Day,  sworn. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your 
business? 

Answer.  I  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  am  a  lawyer  by  pro- 
fession. 

Question.  Be  kind  enough  to  look  at  this  deed  from  Van  Blanken- 
steyn  to  you,  and  say  whether  the  consideration  therein  named  was 
the  amount  paid  for  that  property. 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  is  a  true  copy  of  the  deed 
executed  and  delivered  to  me.  The  consideration  was  not  in  money, 
I  exchanged  property  in  New  York  for  it.  When  I  bought  it  I 
thought  that  I  was  giving  about  $500  an  acre  for  it,  considering  what 
my  property  had  cost  me.  I  ought  to  say  in  this  connexion  that  I 
bought  that  property  from  Mr.  Weissman  with  the  understanding  that 
I  should  build  upon  it,  and  bring  my  friends  and  divide  my  land  into 
sites,  and  thus  make  a  market  for  the  rest  of  the  point.  In  consid- 
eration of  that,  it  was  understood  that  I  should  have  the  land  at  a 
low  price. 

Question.  What  is  the  date  of  that  transaction  ? 

Answer.  I  made  the  purchase  in  November,  1856  ;  the  deed,  I 
think,  was  not  executed  until  1857 — February,  1857.  As  I  have  said, 
the  contract  was  made  earlier. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hopkins.)  Did  you  offer  your  property  to  the 
government? 

Answer.  Major  Barnard  sent  a  gentleman  to  me,  Mr.  Van  Nos- 
trand,  and  I  offered  the  whole  of  it  for  $14,500.  They  made  a  sort  of 
offer  to  me  at  $30,000.     I  said  that  I  was  unwilling  to  take  that. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Wood.)  What  do  you  consider  to  be  the  value  of 
property  there? 

Answer.  ISince  the  government  has  purchased  that  point,  I  consider 
that  they  have  ruined  my  prospect  of  a  private  residence  there. 
Therefore  I  have  sought  other  places  from  this  point  down  towards 
New  York.  Mr.  Cryder  offered  me  a  piece  of  property  which  was 
filled  in — right  on  the  shore.  He  offered  it  to  me  at  $1,000  an  acre. 
High  made  land  he  would  not  take  $1,500  an  acre  for.  But  below 
that,  at  Whitestone — two  miles  below,  and  two  miles,  of  course,  nearer 
New  York — Mr.  Williams  offered  me  that  land.  He  came  and  offered 
it  to  me  at  $2,000  an  acre. 

Question.  How  many  acres? 

Answer.  Eight. 

Question.  Docs  it  front  the  water? 

Answer.  It  does.  The  objection  I  made  to  it  was  this:  There  was 
a  road  to  the  dock  exactly  in  front  of  this  land.  His  slip  comes  to 
that  road  and  cuts  off*  the  land  irom  the  water.  The  tide  falls  out, 
leaving  a  low  place  of  ten  rods,  which  is  a  great  objection  to  it  for  a 
a  private  residence. 

Question.  Is  the  water  front  of  your  residence  good  ? 


TESTIMONY.  275 

Answer.  It  is.  It  leaves  not  half  a  rod  of  gravelly  bottom  when 
the  tide  recedes.     I  bought  it  as  a  bathing  place. 

Question.  Is  not  the  water  front  of  your  residence  the  most  desirable 
of  the  whole  farm  owned  by  Wiessman? 

Answer.  I  consider  it  as  good  as  that  of  any  other  part.  It  is  high 
land,  free  from  marsh.  It  is  all  free  from  marsh  except  along  a  small 
creek  or  river.  There  is  a  little  dry  marsh  there.  The  shore  is  hard 
beach.  It  is  a  poirit  like  New  York  ;  there  are  three  water  fronts. 
Of  course,  if  divided  it  would  give  every  man  some  water  front.  The 
view  for  miles  is  fine.  It  overlooks  the  country  back.  It  overlooks 
Fort  Schuyler,  Cryder's,  and  at  least  five  miles  down  and  two  or  three 
miles  up  the  bay. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Had  Mr.  Wiessman  this  place  laid 
off  in  lots  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  It  was  in  market  for  sale  f 

Answer.  For  some  time;  he  tried  to  sell  it  for  a  long  time.  He 
told  me  that  the  difficulty  was  to  get  somebody  there  to  start  it.  I 
went  there  with  the  understanding  I  have  stated.  Every  other  point 
between  New  York  and  there  is  taken  up  for  private  residences.  At 
College  Point  Mr.  French  had  four  acres  left.  He  told  me  that  he 
had  sold  the  rest  at  the  point  at  $3,000  an  acre. 

Question.  Where  is  that? 

Answer.  Three  miles  nearer  New  York. 

Question.  Upon  the  water  ? 

Answer.  Very  much  such  a  point  as  this  one. 

Question.  Is  it  thickly  populated  down  there? 

Answer    Tliere  is  a  village  near  there. 

Question^  (by  Mr.  Wood.)    What  is  your  price  for  your  residence? 

Answer.  §44,000  for  twenty-six  acres.  Since  I  have  been  trying 
to  purchase  another  place  I  hold  mine  at  what  others  hold  theirs. 

Question,  (by  ]\Ir.  Hopkins.)   What  is  that? 

Answer.  I  have  no  direct  offer.  I  consider  it  worth  $1,500  an  acre. 
I  could  not  buy  it  again  on  that  shore  for  that  price.  I  ought  to  state 
that  there  is  a  place  within  half  a  mile  of  this  which  can  be  bought 
for  $500  an  acre — Mr.  Powell's  place.  It  is  between  my  place  and 
Cryder's.  It  is  some  fifty  acres,  in  a  cove,  but  not  on  a  point.  The 
tide  falls  out,  leaving  ten  rods  of  muddy  shore. 

Wednesday,  March  3,  1858. 

Jacob  PtUSSELL,  sworn  : 

Question.  What  is  your  business? 

Answer.  I  am  chief  clerk  in  the  assistant  treasurer's  office,  New 
York  city. 

Question.  State  what  you  know  in  relation  to  the  payment  of 
$115,000  by  the  War  Department ;  when  made,  to  whom  made,  and 
all  you  know  about  it? 

Answer.  On  the  9th  day  of  July,  in  the  morning,  Richard 
Schell  came  into  the  office  with  a  draft. — (See  Appendix,  No.  18.) 
It  was  then  endorsed  upon  the  back,  ^'  Pay  to  George  Irving."     Mr. 


276  TESTIMONY. 

Schell,  after  showing  it,  without  any  object  that  I  could  understand, 
asked  whether  Mr.  Cisco  was  in.  Mr.  Cisco  happened  at  the  time 
to  be  absent.  He  went  away,  taking  the  drait  with  him.  Subse- 
quently, during  the  day,  it  came  to  us  through  the  American  Ex- 
change Bank. 

Question.  Was  anybody  wuth  Mr.  Schell  when  he  called  in  the 
morning  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  w^as  entirely  alone. 

Question.  Did  he  say  to  whom  the  money  was  to  go? 

Answer.  He  did  not.  I  can  only  speak  of  what  Lieutenant  Gill- 
more  tcld  me  subsequently  ;  but  this,  I  suppose,  would  not  be  con- 
sidered testimony  ? 

Question.  Wlio  is  the  last  endorser  upon  that  draft  ? 

Answer.  Eichard  Schell. 

Question.  Mr.  Cisco  was  not  present  either  time  when  Mr.  Schell 
called  ? 

Answer.  He  was  not  there  when  Mr.  Schell  called  in  the  morning. 
Subsequently,  when  the  draft  was  paid,  he  may  have  been  in  his 
private  office. 

C.  F.  Van  Blankensteyn,  sworn: 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  New  York. 

Question.  Your  business? 

Answer.  Importing  merchant. 

Question.  Are  you  trustee  for  Mrs.  Wiessman  ? 

Answer.  I  am. 

Question.   When  were  you  appointed  such? 

Answer.  It  was  near  the  end  of  December  or  the  beginning  of 
January — December,  1856.  I  did  not  know  what  I  would  have  to 
answer  or  I  would  have  prepared  myself  with  these  particulars.  I 
could  not  refer,  positively,  to  the  day.  I  tliink  it  was  near  tlie  time 
I  have  mentioned.     I  had  nothing  particular  to  transact. 

Question.  As  such  trustee  was  the  fee  of  the  property  which  was 
purchased  by  the  government  in  you? 

Answer.  It  was  not  sold  to  the  government  by  us? 
^    Question.  To  whom  was  it  sold  ? 

Answer.   George  Irving. 

Question.  The  title  to  that  property  was  in  you  as  trustee? 

Answer.   I  liad  to  give  ray  consent  to  have  it  sold. 

Question.  When  was  it  that  you  agreed  to  sell  this  property  to 
George  Irving? 

Answer.  It  was  in  Aj)ril  somewhere — aboutthemiddleof  themonth — 
I  think  the  middle  of  tliat  month,  about  the  15th. 

Question.  Is  that  the  agrecinent  between  Wiessman  and  Irving? 
Bead  the  paper. 

Answer.  I  have  read  the  paper,  and  it  reads  like  the  agreement. 
It  was  made  for  me  to  sign,  and  I  signed  it. 

Question,   Had  you  seen  Mr.  Irving  lefore  in  relation  to  the  matter  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  came  to  me  b(.»fore  even  I  knew  of  the  sale. 
He  came  to  me  with  the  skctcli  of  the  conditions  and  asked  me  whether 


TESTIMONY.  277 

I  would  consent ;  wli  ther  there  was  anything  against  my  signing  the 
document.  I  read  it  through,  and  as  soon  as  Mrs.  Wiessman  re- 
<^uested  me  to  sigi,  I  signed  it.  Those  were  my  instructions.  I 
never  saw  him  hetore. 

Question.  Who  came  with  him  when  he  requested  you  to  sign? 

Answer.   I  think  he  came  alone.     He  did  come  alone. 

Question.  With  whom  did  he  engage  in  regard  to  the  purchase? 

Answer.  With  Mr.  Wiessman. 

Question.  Did  you  see  at  any  time  any  other  person  in  reference  to 
this  purchase,  excepting  Mr.  Irving? 

Answer.  No  ;  he  is  is  the  only  man  I  had  dealings  with. 

Question.  There  is  a  deed  from  Wiessman  to  Irving  ;  read  it. 

Answer,  I  know  pretty  well  what  I  have  done  ;  what  was  done 
was  done  by  the  hands  of  my  attorney  ;  he  showed  me  how  it  was 
to  be  signed,  and  I  signed  it.  Owens  &  Vose  are  my  attorneys;  I 
think  the  deed  is  all  right  ;  I  could  not  swear  as  to  the  day. 

Question.  Under  that  deed  was  there  any  money  paid,  and  by 
whom? 

Answer.  By  Mr.  Irving  was  paid,  on  the  15th  of  April,  $1,000  ; 
the  a^^jreement,  you  see,  reads  $1,000  down  money  ;  he  paid  me  that. 
For  $9,000  he  gave  me  a  check  payable  on  the  28th  of  April  ;  if  not 
paid  then  the  $1^000  was  to  be  forfeited. 

Question.  Was  this  check  payable  to  your  order  ? 

Answer.  It  was  his  check,  and  it  must  have  been  to  my  order.  I 
was  the  only  one  who  could  receive  the  money. 

Question.   Was  that  check  paid  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  on  the  28th  of  April. 

Question.  When  was  the  next  payment  made  ? 

Answer.  On  the  9th  of  July  there  was  the  balance  paid  ;  there  was 
a  mortgage  of  $85,000,  with  interest. 

Question.   Was  anybody  with  him  when  he  paid  $1,000  ? 

Answer.  No_,  sir  ;  he  came  alone  to  ask  whether  I  would  consent  ; 
I  read  the  paper  through  ;  I  told  him  it  was  satisfactory,  and  that  so 
«oon  as  I  had  my  instructions  to  sign  I  would  do  so. 

Question.  When  was  the  next  payment? 

Answer.  On  the  9th  of  July,  of  $35,000,  after  having  paid  off  the 
mortgage,  with  interest. 

Question.  Is  that  the  mortgage  which  was  on  it  ? 

Answer.  $15,000  and  some  odd  dollars.  They  had  charge  of  that 
mortgage,  which  they  paid  off ;  there  were  two  mortgages,  one  to 
Willetts  and  one  to  Lowrie.     They  were  both  in  the  same  connexion. 

Question.  The  mortgage  which  you  satisfied  was  paid  on  the  9th 
of  July  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   By  whom? 

Answer.  Mr.  Irving  ;  he  gave  me  his  check,  and  then  I  changed 
papers  with  him  ;  it  was  done  between  his  lawyer  and  my  lawyer  ; 
Mr.  Wetmore  was  his  lawyer  ;  I  was  not  well  informed  of  formalities. 
There  was  one  mortgage  to  Mr.  Willetts  and  one  to  Mr.  Lowrie, 
trustee  for  a  sister  of  Mr.  Willetts.   They  were  both  paid  ofl'  together. 


278  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  How  much  more  money  was  paid  at  that  time? 

Answer.  That  is  all. 

Question.  Was  Mr.  Wiessman  present  at  this  payment? 

Answer.  He  was  not.  The  $1,000,  I  think,  I  got  in  bills.  The 
$9,000  was  paid  in  a  check.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Irving's  check  cer- 
tified. 

Question.  That  made  the  whole  payment,  leaving  $85,000  on 
mortgage? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Who  negotiated  the  sale  with  Irving,  you  or  Wiessman  ? 

Answer.   Wiessman. 

Question.  Who  holds  the  $85,000  mortgage? 

Answer.  I  do,  for  the  benefit  of  Mrs.  Wiessman. 

Question.  Has  any  one  an  interest  in  that  mortgage  but  Mrs. 
Wiessman  ? 

Answer.  Nobody  but  Mrs,  Wiessman.  If  she  should  die  the  chil- 
dren would  have. 

Question.   To  whom  do  you  pay  the  interest? 

Answer.  Mrs.  Wiessman  ;  it  is  her  income. 

Question.  It  appears  that  when  this  deed  was  delivered  there  were 
two  mortgages  taken  back  to  you,  one  for  $85^000,  and  the  other  for 
$15,000;  explain  that. 

Answer.  There  was  a  short  mortgage.  They  had  not  enough  to 
pay  me  in  full,  and  they  wanted  the  deed.  They  gave  me  a  tempo- 
rary mortgage.  Whether  I  made  a  mistake  or  not,  I  had  it  recorded. 
They  gave  me  satisfaction  or  security  to  be  enabled  to  have  my  deed  ; 
the  mortgages — Willett's  and  Lowrie's — they  paid  off  on  the  2d  or  3d 
of  July,  but  the  funds  were  not  ready  until  I  gave  them  the  release. 
I  would  not  give  up  my  deed  until  I  had  the  funds. 

Question.  The  mortgage  for  $85,000  was  a  long  mortgage  for  five 
years,  and  the  other,  for  $15,000,  was  a  short  mortgage. 

Answer.  It  was  only  ior  a  few  days  ;  it  was  from  the  time  they 
paid  the  other  two  mortgages  up  to  the  time  I  got  my  money. 

Question.    That  was  the  reason  for  their  paying  two    mortgages 
instead  of  one  for  the  whole  amount  ? 
:  Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Irving  state  to  you  the  source  from  which  he 
obtained  the  money  to  pay  ofi"  these  mortgages? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  Had  you  this  property  in  market  for  sale  before  Mr. 
Irving  purchased  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  bought  more  or  less  for  speculation. 

Question.   It  had  been  in  the  market  for  sale? 

Answer.  Not  in  the  market  for  sale  ;  the  intention  was  to  lay  it  out 
in  country  seats  ;  it  was  laid  out ;  there  was  a  plan  for  it  in  lots  of  ten 
and  fifteen  acres. 

Question.  At  what  price  in  the  month  of  January  last  did  you  hold  it? 
•  Answer.  1  never  knew  of  any  selling  price. 


TESTIMONY.  279 

Question.  Was  a  part  of  that  property  sold  since  you  have  been  a 
trustee,  and  before  the  sale  to  Irving  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a  part  sold  to  Mr.  Day  since  I  have  been  trustee. 

Question.  How  much  was  that  sold  for? 

Answer.  I  did  not  get  funds  for  it ;  I  took  real  estate  for  it. 

Question.  Here  is  the  deed  ;  was  the  price  of  the  deed  the  price  at 
which  it  was  agreed  to  be  sold  ? 

Answer.  Eleven  thousand  dollars  ;  that  was  the  price  ;  we  got  dwell- 
ing houses  in  the  city. 

Question.  Was  this  transaction  had  with  you,  or  through  Mr.  Wiess- 
man? 

Answer.  Through  Mr.  Wiessman  ;  I  had  nothing  material  to  do  but 
to  sign  the  papers  at  Mrs.  Wiessman's  request. 

Question.  The  transaction  with  the  United  States  was  effected  more 
by  Wiessman  than  yourself? 

Answer.  Not  to  the  United  States. 

Question.  The  agreement  with  Irving? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  through  Mr.  Wiessman;  the  agreements 
were  all  made  by  Mr.  Wiessman  ;  then  I  was  requested  to  sign,  and  I 
signed  them. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  value  of  the  land  of  your  own  knowledge  ? 

Answer.   I  do  not. 

Question.  Who  collects  the  interest  for  Mrs.  Wiessman? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question.  To  whom  do  you  pay  it? 

Answer.  To  Mrs.  Wiessman  ;  I  give  it  to  Mr.  Wiessman  upon  the 
order  of  Mrs.  Wiessman. 

Question.  Did  you  never  hear  of  a  price  being  fixed  upon  this  prop- 
erty in  January  by  Mr.  Wiessman  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  merely  performed  your  duties  of  trustee,  upon  the 
written  request  of  Mrs.  Wiessman  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Who  was  trustee  before  you  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  N.  D.  C.  Moller.  He  lives  in  Jersey.  That  is  the 
reason  he  requeste*!  to  be  discharged  from  the  trust. 

Question.    Where  in  Jersey  ? 

Answer.  Summit. 

Question.  Do  you  know  how  many  acres  there  are  in  the  tract  sold 
to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  How  often  have  you  been  upon  it? 

Answer.  I  have  been  upon  the  land  but  once. 

Question.   Before  you  were  trustee? 

Answer.  While  1  was  trustee.  When  it  was  sold  I  thought  I 
would  go  out  once  and  see  it.     It  was  a  beautiful  place. 

Question.  You  do  not  know  the  value  of  the  land  ? 

Answer.   I  do  not. 

Question.   What  does  the  amount  paid  and  to  be  paid  amount  to  ? 

Answer.  $130,000. 

Question.  How  much  does  Mrs.  Wiessman  receive? 


280  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  $130,000,  Including  the  two  mortgages  from  Willetts  and 
Lowrie? 

Question.  It  was  an  actual  bona  fide  sale,  as  far  as  you  know  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  got  $1,000,  $9,000,  $15,500,  and  then  the 
mortgage  for  $85,000. 

Question.  Who  paid  the  mortgages  of  Willetts  and  Lowrie? 

Answer.  His  lawyer,  Mr.  Wetmore. 

Question.  What,  as  the  agent  of  Mrs.  Wiessman,  was  the  value  you 
put  upon  the  tract  sold  to  Mr.  Day  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  put  any  particular  value.  $11,000  was  the  con- 
sideration named  in  the  deed. 

Question.  What  quantity  of  land  was  sold? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say.  It  was  a  straight  line  across  the  land.  The 
deed  says  twenty-six  acres. 

Question.  Was  the  portion  purchased  hy  Day  a  good  portion? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  the  worse  part. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in  relation  to 
this? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Latham  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  Those  are  persons  I  know  by  sight ;  that  is  all. 

Colonel  John  L.  Smith,  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman  : 

I  am  colonel  by  brevet  and  major  of  engineers  United  States  army; 
I  am  stationed  in  New  York,  and  am  in  charge  of  the  contemplated 
fortification  at  Wilkins'  or  Willett's  Point.  Nothing  has  been  done 
there  except  the  preparation  of  surveys.  No  contracts  have  been 
made  for  the  work  ;  the  government  are  in  possession  of  the  pro}ierty, 
but  I  cannot  say  how  long  they  have  been  ;  I  know  nothing  of  the 
Degotiations  or  facts  and  circumstances  connected  with  the  purchase 
of  this  property.  I  was  away  when  the  purchase  was  made,  and 
arrived  in  New  York  in  the  latter  part  of  November  last.  A  plan 
for  the  fortification  has  not  been  formed  yet.  There  was  a  plan  made 
in  1820,  but  the  plan  for  this  fortification  has  not  been  made  before, 
because  the  surveys  have  not  been  made. 

Examination  by  Mr.  Hall  : 

It  is  a  part  of  the  general  plan  for  fortifications  made  by  General 
Bernard  over  thirty  years  ago.  I  think  the  ibrtification  is  a  neces- 
sary one.  It  is  the  nearest  narrow  passage  to  the  East  river  from  the 
Sound.  The  river  is  about  a  mile  wide  there.  It  is  an  established 
principle  that  the  re-entering  angle  should  be  fortified.  I  think  Fort 
Schuyler  cost  $800,000  or  $1300,000.  It  is  diagonally  opposite  Wilkins' 
Point.  I  think  Fort  Schuyler  is  impregnable  ;  no  enemy  can  take  a 
})Osition  there  to  affect  the  armament ;  it  cannot  be  enveloped.  A 
tJeet  could  not  pass  from  the  Sound  into  the  East  river  by  Fort  Schuyler, 
nor  do  I  think  a  vessel-of-war  could  so  })ass  by.  Cryder's  Point  is  a 
very  good  position  for  a  fortification,  but  Wilkins'   Point  has   ihe 


TESTIMONY.  281 

advantage  of  nearness  of  approach.     I  had  charge  of  and  built  Fort 
Schuyler. 

Examination  by  Mr.  Wood. 

There  are  other  points  which  would  answer  the  purposes  of  a  forti- 
fication better  than  Wilkins'  Point.  The  place  known  as  the  "  Step- 
ping Stone"  I  think  would  answer  as  well  for  a  fortification,  thou^jh 
I  prefer  Wilkins'  Point.  All  the  land  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
fortification  has  been  purchased  ;  though  twenty-six  acres,  owned  by 
Mr.  Day,  might  with  propriety  be  purchased,  and  I  made  up  my 
mind  that  the  government  might  pay  $500  an  acre  for  it,  and  not 
more ;  and  I  so  reported  to  the  War  Department.  I  know  that 
Wilkins'  Point  ia  a  very  sickly  place.  They  have  the  fever  and  ague 
there  badly  ;  there  is  no  population  at  Wilkins'  Point ;  there  is  one 
person  in  charge  there  ;  the  Wiessman  house  on  the  premises  is  not 
worth  much.  It  was  badly  built,  and  has  settled  greatly.  They  had 
the  fever  and  ague  so  badly,  and  it  w^as  so  sickly  at  Wilkins'  Point, 
that  we  erected  barracks  at  Fort  Schuyler  for  the  men  employed  by 
government,  on  account  of  sickness  at  Wilkins'  Point.  The  value  of 
the  buildings  on  the  property  for  any  purpose  is  not  much,  nor  would 
it  be  worth  much  for  a  country  seat. 

The  witness  having  been  requested  by  Mr.  Hall  to  send  a  brief 
written  statement  of  the  necessity  for  the  fortification  opposite  Fort 
Schuyler,  furnished  the  following  : 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  11,  1858. 

Sir  :  In  pursuance  of  the  instructions  of  your  committee  I  submit 
in  writing  the  substance  of  what  I  have  stated  to  you  verbally,  in 
answer  to  your  inquiries  as  to  the  absolute  and  relative  fitness  for 
defence  of  the  positions  of  Throg's  Point  and  Willett's  Point,  and 
the  ^'eneral  military  principles  upon  which  my  answers  were  founded. 

Throg's  Point  (Fort  Schuyler)  is  absolutely  strong  as  a  position  for 
resisting  the  passage  of  hostile  vessels  from  Long  Island  Sound  to  the 
East  river,  because  such  vessels  would  be  unavoidably  exposed  to  a 
raking  fire  at  extieme  effective  range,  on  their  approach  and  a'ter 
having  })assed,  besides  the  fire  upon  them  in  passing,  when  their 
8peed  would  be  retarded  by  the  necessity  for  adapting  the  sails  to  the 
change  of  course  through  nearly  three-fourths  of  the  circle.  The 
technical  objection  to  it  on  account  of  its  being  salient  is  neutralized, 
in  a  great  measure,  by  the  delay  of  passage  incidental  to  the  extensive 
curve  of  the  channel,  and  to  the  necessity  of  shifting  the  sails,  and 
thereby  diminishing  the  speed  while  within  point  blank  distance.  It 
has  absolute  strength,  also,  on  the  land  side.  It  is  at  the  extre.nity 
of  a  peninsula,  and  its  line  for  defence  is  as  long,  if  not  longer,  than 
any  that  could  be  taken  for  attack.  No  enfilading  batteries  could  be 
established  upon  its  flank,  and  therefore  its  armament  could  not  be 
disabled  except  by  direct  fire.  It  cannot  be  enveloped  by  land,  and 
therefore  its  means  of  defence  in  that  direction  are  equal  to  those  of 
the  attack,  and,  if  properly  directed,  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  main- 
tain it  against  any  force,  as  it  is  bomb-proof,  and  could  not,  therefore, 
be  effectively  bombarded. 


282  TESTIMONY. 

Willett's  Point  being  next  to  the  channel  is  more  favorably 
situated  than  Throg's  Point  for  resisting  the  approach  and  passage  of 
hostile  vessels,  as  its  fire  is  more  concentrated.  It  has  less  strength 
than  Throg's  Point  for  defence  on  the  land  side,  but  enough  to  admit 
of  resistance  until  succored. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  L.  SMITH, 
Colonel  hy  Brevet ^  Major  Corps  of  Engineers, 
Hon.  John  B.  Haskin, 

Chairman  of  the  Investigating  Committee  respecting  WilletVs  Point, 
House  of  Representatives, 

H.  W.  Benham,  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  J.  B.  Haskin: 

The  following  communication  was  shown  the  witness,  and  he  was 
asked  whether  he  was  the  author  of  it,  to  which  he  replied  that  he 
was : 

The  Secretary  of  War  and  the  New  Bedford  Fort  land  purchase, 

Washington,  April  3,  1858. 

As  much  has  been  said  recently  about  the  large  price  paid  for  lands 
for  fortification  purposes  at  New  Bedford,  and  attempts  have  been 
made  to  implicate  the  Secretary  of  War  in  a  censurable  manner  in  this 
transaction,  it  seems  but  proper  that  the  true  history  of  this  sale 
should  be  laid  before  the  public,  that  the  responsibility  of  any  error 
or  wrong  doing  may  rest  upon  the  proper  persons,  and  it  will  be  seen 
pretty  clearly  that  the  Secretary  of  War,  at  least,  is  not  one  of  them. 
The  information  of  the  writer  is  from  different  sources,  such  as  the 
official  records  of  the  transaction  at  New  Bedford,  and  at  Washington, 
the  opinion  of  many  of  the  principal  citizens  of  New  Bedford  and  the 
action  of  the  military  officers  concerned  in  the  case,  and  he  defies  a 
doubt,  or  challenges  inquiry  as  to  any  of  the  statements  advanced  or 
references  made. 

The  land  in  question  is  situated  from  two  to  three  miles  south  of 
the  city  proper  of  New  Bedford,  and  consists  of  a  farm  of  about  102 
acres,  with  buildings  upon  it  that  might  properly  be  rated  at  $3,000  to 
$4,000  in  value.  For  farm  purposes,  the  land  would  be  valued  between 
$100  to  $150  per  acre,  probably  most  generally  nearer  the  former  rate; 
for  city  purposes  or  lots,  if  the  city  continued  to  increase  in  that  direc- 
tion at  the  rate  it  has  for  the  last  50  years,  it  would  require  some  two 
hundred  years  at  least  to  bring  it  within  the  limits  of  the  city  proper. 
The  assessed  value  last  year  for  taxes  as  by  the  records  was  $12,500  ; 
for  the  whole  fifirra. 

This  much  for  the  description  of  the  property.  Now  as  to  the  sale. 
The  owner  naturally  enougli  desired  to  obtain  the  highest  price  for  his 
land  ;  and  though  oi)inions  as  to  what  a  jury  would  appraise  it  at 
for  gov(;rnment  purposes  varied  generally  between  $20,000  and 
$40,000,  the  owner  demanded  $2,000  an  acre  for  the  lower  30  acres, 
and  $1,000  an  acre  if  the  whole  were  taken.     Upon  an  application 


TESTIMONY.  283 

"being  made  to  him  by  some  shrewd  * 'operators"  from  New  York,  these 
men  obtained  his  ''refusal"  for  one  month  at  those  prices,  and  going 
to  Washington  offered  the  whole  for  as  much  as  $1,800  per  acre  or 
over  |80,000  advance.  This  offer  was  declined  at  the  War  Depart- 
ment, upon  which  these  men  returned  and  obtained  the  refusal  for 
another  month,  and  during  this  time  they  appear  to  have  acquired 
such  a  confidence  in  their  ultimate  success  that  at  the  end  of  this 
month  they  closed  a  bargain  for  60  acres  at  §1,000  per  acre,  {on  con- 
dition that  they  could  sell  it  to  the  United  States,)  paying  about  three  and 
a  half  per  cent,  of  the  jmrchase  money  down.  They  went  immediately 
to  Washington  and  offered  this  land  at  §1,800  per  acre,  and  if  not 
acceptable  at  that  price,  proposed  to  submit  it  to  arbitration,  having 
taken  the  precaution  to  fortify  themselves  with  a  letter  from  one  of 
the  most  prominent  citizens  of  New  Bedford,  a  high  official  function- 
ary, who,  though  the  legal  counsel  of  the  original  owner  of  the  land, 
was  not  then  known,  or  suspected  to  be  so,  at  the  War  Department, 
as  it  is  understood,  or  by  the  distinguished  military  officer  who  had 
previously  consulted  him  in  relation  to  the  government  interest  in 
this  matter.  The  amount  of  this  letter  was,  that  in  consequence  of 
the  fine  road  in  that  vicinity,  and  the  fitness  of  the  land  for  summer 
residences,  (the  first  of  which,  on  the  lower  mile  of  the  best  side,  by 
the  bye,  has  yet  to  be  built,)  "  he  would  sooner  submit  the  question  of 
ils  value  to  an  unbiassed  jury  than  dispose  of  any  portion  of  it  at  the 
rate  of  §2,000  an  acre." 

With  this  letter  before  him  from  this  most  distinguished  and  appa- 
rently disinterested  person,  the  Secretary  of  War,  with  his  experience 
of  the  verdicts  of  juries  against  the  government,  when  acted  upon  by 
subtle  or  eloquent  lawyers,  might  naturally  enough  fear  this  alterna- 
tive, and  at  the  same  time  feel  that  it  would  be  safer  for  the  govern- 
ment interests  to  trust  to  the  opinion  of  a  smaller  number  of  selected 
individuals,  of  high  personal  consideration,  supposed  to  be  above  the 
appeals  to  prejudice  or  passion  perraissable  in  jury  trials,  and  he  ac- 
cordingly decided  to  submit  the  matter  to  arbitration.  And  to  show 
his  fairness  and  anxiety  for  justice  in  the  case,  as  the  distinguished 
functi  mary  before  alluded  to  had  happened  to  suggest  three  persons, 
from  his  own  knowledge  of  them,  as  suitable  referees  to  be  selected  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  the  local  engineer  officer  had  done 
the  same  thing,  from  the  information  given  him  from  many  different 
sources,  on  each  of  which  lists  persons  of  the  different  political  parties 
were  comprised,  including  two  of  the  most  prominent  friends  of  the 
administration  to  be  found  in  the  place.  The  Secretary,  with  unsur- 
passed fairness,  selected  the  single  person  named  on  both  lists — 
though  as  far  as  politics  are  concerned  one  of  the  most  prominent 
memhers  of  a  different  party  from  his  own — and  the  military  officer 
was  informed  that,  "in  accordance  with  his  recommendation,"  such 
gentleman  was  appointed,  with  a  request  that  he  should  ask  his  ac- 
ceptance of  the  trust  The  other  party  selected  as  their  rejeree  one  of 
the  democratic  gentlemen  named  on  the  list  first  offered  to  the  Secre- 
tary, and  the  two  first  selected  as  umpire  the  other  democratic  gentle- 
man named  by  the  officer,  and  on  his  declension,  another  umpire  was 
selected,  but  little  known  in  politics ;   but  all  the  gentlemen  here 


284  TESTIMONY. 

alluded  to  were  of  the  most  prominent  as  to  wealth  and  respectability 
in  the  city. 

These  referees  met,  and,  hound  by  their  honor  only,  for  there  was  no 
other  obligation,  yet  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  whole  city  of 
New  Bedford  was  astounded  at  learning  that  their  award  w^as  that  the 
government  should  pay  $1 ,300^)er  acre,  or  $78,000/or  these  60  acres  of 
land,  the  government  referee  adding  a  statement  that  he  had  appraised 
it  at  $1,250  per  acre.  This  astonishment  was  of  course  vastly  in- 
creased with  those  who  hieio  that  one  ot  the  original  referees  had 
written  to  the  Secretary  of  War  that  a  jury  could  not  possihly,  in  his 
opinion,  assess  this  land  at  more  than  $1,000  per  acre,  and  that  the 
other  referee  had  expressed  his  belief  to  the  military  officers  who  took 
action  in  the  case,  that  the  original  owner  might  ask  as  high  as 
$30,000  for  the  whole  farm,  or  less  than  $300  an  acre. 

How  it  was  possible  that  this  property,  with  which  these  gentlemen 
had  been  familiar  all  their  lives,  in  the  short  time  that  they  were  con- 
sulting ui)on  it,  should  have  ^^appreciated"  in  the  mind  of  one  of 
these  referees  to  the  extent  of  some  30  per  cent,  or  more,  and  with  the 
other,  and  that  one  the  government  referee,  to  over  300  per  cent.,  is 
still  the  great  mystery  of  the  transaction.  It  is  but  just  to  say  that  no 
insinuations  have  been  heard  against  the  integrity  of  the  referees  in 
this  case  ;  while  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that  if  the  greater  portion  of 
the  large  sum  available  for  the  defence  and  protection  of  the  citizens  of 
New  Bedford  has  thus  gone  into  the  pockets  of  private  individuals,  with- 
out a  just  equivalent,  these  three  or  four  prominent  citizens  of  New 
Bedford  are  solely  ansiver  able  for  it,  and  not  the  Secretary  of  War,  who, 
like  an  honest  man,  simply  confirmed  the  engagement  he  had  made 
in  good  faith,  and  without  cavil  or  objection  ;  and  who,  from  the  time 
of  determining  to  submit  to  arbitration,  (a  decision  which,  it  must  be 
admitted,  he  had  a  right  to  make,  and  for  which  what  appeared  strong 
reasons  might  be  advanced,)  is  no  more  responsible  for  the  payment 
of  this  large  sum,  if  as  much  so,  as  the  engineer  officer  who,  in  all 
good  faith,  recommended  the  government  referee.  And  the  more 
than  twenty  years  faithful  devotion  to  the  public  interests  shown  by 
that  officer  lias  never  permitted  the  breath  of  slander  against  him  in 
that  or  any  other  official  transaction. 

The  above  history  of  the  case,  written,  as  must  be  seen,  without 
passion  or  prejudice,  will  show  not  only  how  blameless  the  Secretary 
of  War  has  been  in  this  whole  matter,  but  how  high  minded  and 
honorable  he  has  been  in  his  endeavors  to  secure  the  public  interest 
free  from  all  selfish  or  party  interest.  Not  only  the  person  named  as 
referee  by  him,  but  the  functionary  alluded  to — whose  opinion,  it  is 
feared,  had  so  much  weight,  from  his  official  position  and  character — 
it  may  be  stated,  if  not  even  a  third  of  the  four  gentlemen  concerned, 
have  been  always  ])rominent  members  of  another  political  party  ;  and 
if  the  attacks  which  are  made  in  the  cases  of  the  Fort  8nelling  and 
Willett's  Point  sales  are  no  better  founded  than  this,  as  all  the  in- 
quiries of  the  writer  lead  to  the  belief  of,  the  Secretary  of  War  will, 
indeed,  come  out  from  this  fiery  ordeal  like  pure  gold  from  the  furnace. 

Question.  Did  you  have  it  published  in  the  New  York  Herald? 


TESTIMONY.  285 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  asked  them  whether  it  would  be  agreeable  for 
them  to  know  the  facts  and  publish  them,  and  they  paid  it  would. 

Question.  Did  you  pay  anything  to  have  it  inserted? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  nothing  was  ask^^d.  I  m.erely  stated  the  facts. 
I  saw  allusions  to  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  War  Department 
growing  out  of  the  New  Bedford  matter,  and  my  own  convictions  were 
that  he  was  an  honorable  and  high  minded  man,  and  that  gross  in- 
justice was  being  done  him,  so  1  called  at  the  Herald  office  and  told 
them  that  I  w^as  conversant  with  the  facts  generally,  and  asked  them 
whether  they  would  like  to  publish  them,  and  that  if  they  would  I 
would  prepare  them.  I  wrote  it  in  New  Bedford,  and  sent  it  on  to 
them.  I  did  this  of  my  owm  volition,  feeling  certain  that  the  Secretary 
of  War  had  never  heard  or  known  anything  about  it. 

Question.  What  you  have  said  you  mean  to  apply  to  the  New"  Bed- 
ford case,  with  the  facts  of  which  you  are  familiar? 

Answer.  I  am  familiar  with  a  larger  number  of  the  facts  in  the 
New  Bedford  case  than  any  other  person.  I  do  not  know  anything 
personally  of  any  other  case. 

Question.  Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  any  of  the  facts 
and  circumstances  connected  w^ith  the  sale  and  purchase  of  the  Wil- 
kins'  Point  property? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  My  allusion  to  it  in  my  letter  was  merely  from 
the  rumors  I  had  heard  in  reference  to  the  matter,  which  confirmed  the 
opinion  I  had  of  the  Secretary's  conduct  in  the  New  Bedford  matter, 
and  left  him  clear,  and  I  merely  stated  it.  I  got  it  from  Lieutenant 
Gill  more,  who  got  it  from  another  person.  You  will  recollect  that  I 
observe  as  far  as  I  can  hear,  and  having  my  general  opinion  of  the 
honesty  of  the  Secretary  confirmed  by  rumors  in  the  other  matter,  I 
thought  I  could  very  truly  allude  to  it. 

Question.  Are  you  a  captain  in  the  array? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  been  connected  with  the  army  twenty-one 
years. 

Querstion.  Has  it  not  been  the  custom  of  the  engineer  bureau  of  the 
W^ar  Department  to  negotiate  and  complete  all  purchases  of  property 
that  are  made  for  fortification  purposes? 

Answer.  I  have  never  known  of  the  purchase  of  land,  or  been  con- 
cerned in  such  purchase  before,  by  the  engineer  department. 

Monday,  May  17,  1858, 

John  W.  Lawrence,  sworn.  Examined  bv  the  Chairman,  (Hon.  J. 
B.  Haskin.) 

Question.  AVhere  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  business? 
Answer.  I  reside  at  Flushing,  Long  Island  ;  1  have  no  business,  I 
am  out  of  business. 

Question.   You  formerly  represented  your  district  in  Congress? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.   How  far  do  you  reside  from  this  Wilkins'  Point  property? 

Answer.  About  four  miles. 

Question.   Are  you  well  acquainted  with  it? 

Answer.   I  am. 


286  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  In  the  early  part  of  1857  were  you  spoken  to  in  relation 
to  this  property  by  any  person  connected  with  the  government? 

Answer.  In  the  month  of  February,  or  the  early  part  of  March  of 
last  year,  Major  Barnard  called  on  me  to  know  the  value  of  that  point. 

Question.   Did  he  call  at  your  residence? 

Answer.  At  my  office  in  New  York.  He  inquired  of  me  as  to  the 
value  of  the  property,  and  I  stated  to  him  that  it  was  certainly  one  of 
the  most  beautiful  places  I  had  ever  seen  in  my  life  ;  that  I  had  known 
it  all  my  life,  and  that  probably  the  government  would  have  to  pay 
$100,000  for  it.  He  thoughtthe  pricewashigh.  I  stated tohim  thatif  I 
was  appointed  a  commissioner  that  that  was  the  price  I  would  fix  on  it. 

Question.  Do'you  know  Mr.  Wiessman,  who  lived  on  that  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  very  well.     1  have  known  him  for  years. 

Question.  Had  he  had  the  property  in  the  market  for  sale  for  some 
time  previous  to  the  sale  to  Irving  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  not  directly.  I  think  it  had  not  been  offered 
previously. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  it  had  or  not? 

Answer.  I  should  have  known  it  if  it  had  been.  It  had  been  in  the 
market  for  sale  in  plots. 

Question.  The  whole  property  was  cut  up  into  plots,  and  in  that 
way  offered  for  sale  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  Mr.  Wiessman  called  on  me  and  told  me  that 
Draper  had  approached  him  in  reference  to  purchasing  it,  and  I  then 
said  that  I  supposed  he,  (Wiessman,)  must  know  that  it  must  be  with 
a  view  of  selling  the  property  to  the  government,  and  that  he  must  be 
a  little  cautious  how  he  made  proposals  to  sell.  I  merely  state  this 
to  illustrate  that  the  property  had  not  been  offered  for  sale  as  a  whole, 
but  in  plots  for  gentlemen's  residences,  perhaps  because  the  property 
was  beautifully  adapted  for  that. 

Question.  Did  Wiessman  ever  tell  you  what  he  expected  to  get  per 
acre  for  those  plots  ? 

Anjwer.  We  frequently  used  to  talk  of  it,  and  of  certain  portions 
of  it  which  were  worth  more  than  others. 

Question.  What  price  did  he  fix  on  them  ? 

Answer.  From  $500  to  $1,000  an  acre,  I  think. 

Question.  Were  you  at  any  time  Mr.  Wiessman's  agent  in  connexion 
with  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Not  further  than  this,  that  after  Major  Barnard  called  on 
me  I  went  to  see  Mr.  Wiessman  to  advise  him  to  fix  on  a  fair  price  to 
sell  to  the  government,  and  told  him  what  I  told  Major  Barnard,  that 
$100,000  was  a  fair  price  for  it ;  I  advised  him  as  a  friend  to  fix  that 
price  upon  it,  and  he  then  authorized  me  to  sell  it  for  that. 

Question.  Was  there  any  time  fixed  within  wliich  you  were  to  sell 
it  to  the  government  for  that  price? 

Answer.  At  first  I  tried  to  get  Wiessman  to  go  to  Barnard  and  make 
the  ofier  and  leave  me  out  of  the  transaction,  as  I  did  not  want  to 
have  anything  to  do  with  it ;  but,  for  some  reason  or  other,  whenever 
he  got  with  the  government  officers  he  would  not  fix  any  price  ;  he 
would  baffle  about  it  and  say  he  thought  it  worth  so  much,  ($120,000  ;) 


TESTIMONY.  287 

but  I  could  not  get  him  to  come  right  out ;  I  told  him  that  it  was  not 
a  matter  to  he  trifled  with. 

Question.  Finally,  he  authorized  you  to  sell  it  for  $100,000? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  When  was  this? 

Answer.  I  should  think  it  was  about  the  middle  of  March. 

Question.  In  what  year  ? 

Answer.  Last  year — 1857. 

Question.  Was  there  any  time  specified  within  which  that  offer  was 
to  he  accepted  ? 

Answer.  Not  at  first ;  hut  afterwards,  while  Major  Barnard  was  at 
my  house,  Mr.  Wiessman  came  to  me,  and  told  me  that  Mr.  Irving 
had  made  a  proposition  to  him  to  buy  it  if  the  government  did  not 
take  it  iu  a  certain  time,  and  that  he  had  made  a  contract  with  him, 
that  if  the  government  did  not  take  it  before  the  first  day  of  April, 
that  Mr.  Irving  was  to  have  it  for  $130,000.  I  borrowed  the  contract 
from  Mr.  Wiessman,  and  presented  it  to  Major  Barnard,  who  was  then 
stopping  at  my  house,  and  told  him  that  I  thought  it  was  his  duty  to 
come  on  at  once  to  Washington  ;  that  I  would  engage  that  he  should 
buy  the  property  for  $100,000.  I  do  not  know  now  whether  I  then 
stated  to  him  that  I  was  authorized  by  Mr.  Wiessman  to  sell  it  to  the 
government  for  $100,000  or  not.  I  told  him  to  come  on  here  at  once, 
and  see  General  Totten. 

Question.   Who  signed  that  contract? 

Answer.  Wiessman  and  Irving. 

Question.  Was  any  money  paid  then  ? 

Answer.  No  money  was  paid.  It  was  only  a  provisional  agree- 
ment, and  that  is  the  reason  I  wanted  Barnard  to  come  right  on  here. 

Question.  No  money  had  been  paid? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  nothing  at  all.  I  told  Major  Barnard  then  that 
it  would  get  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  and  then,  of  course,  he 
would  have  to  pay  for  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  induced  George  Irving  to  make  this 
offer? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  whether  Prosper  M.Wetmore  had  anything 
to  do  with  it  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  the  least  knowledge  of  any  of  the  parties 
concerned. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  on  the 
subject  ? 

Answer.  Never. 

Question.  With  Richard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  knc^w  him.  There  are  none  of  the  parties  except 
Prosper  M.  W^etmore  whose  names  I  have  heard  connected  with  it, 
that  I  am  personally  acquainted  with. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in  your  neighbor- 
hood during  this  time? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  where  George  Irving  lives  ? 


288  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  believe  he  has  a  place  at  Great  Neck,  I  do  not  know 
the  man. 

Question.  Do  you  know  when  it  was  after  the  first  of  April  that  the 
agreement  was  entered  into  between  Wiessman   and  George  Irving  ? 

Answer.  That  agreement  was  carried  out  afterwards. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  terms  of  the  agreement  as  to  the 
payment? 

Answer.  I  do  not  remember  specifically  ;  and  I  think  that,  perhaps, 
after  he  made  the  contract,  and  before  the  time  expired,  that  it  was 
on  my  advice  that  he  still  agreed  to  take  $100,000  for  the  property 
from  the  government.  I  told  him  that  I  did  not  know  the  parties, 
and  that  if  he  looked  at  the  wording  of  the  contract,  he  would  see 
that  it' they  did  not  fulfill  it  they  would  only  forfeit  the  first  payment, 
and  he  would  have  no  claim  on  them  for  the  balance  of  the  purchase 
money  ;  and  I  told  him  that  it  was  better  to  make  one  sale  of  it,  and 
get  $100,000  from  the  government,  than  to  have  any  tail  to  a  contract. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Wiessman  tell  you  when  Mr.  Irving  paid  him 
any  money  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  did  tell  me  at  one  time  that  he  had  received  a 
portion  of  the  first  payment,  but  it  was  not  of  sufficient  interest  to  me 
to  make  any  impression  on  my  mind. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  During  the  time  you  had  this  property  for 
sale,  did  any  one  approach  you  in  regard  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  no  one  ever  knew  that  I  was  authorized  to  sell  it. 
I  do  not  know  that  Major  Barnard  did.  I  merely  told  him  that  he 
could  have  the  property  for  $100,000. 

Question.  Was  Major  Barnard  stopping  at  your  residence  at  the 
time  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  for  a  few  days,  whilst  engaged  in  examining  that 
and  the  neighboring  points. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Hall.)  Had  Major  Barnard  reason  to  believe,  from 
your  manner  of  conversing  with  him  on  the  subject,  that  you  could 
secure  the  property  for  the  government  at  $100,000  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  he  had  reason  to  believe  it,  and  he  must  have 
had  reason,  for  L  made  the  proposition  to  him. 

Question,  fby  the  Chairman).  Do  you  know  who  were  the  parties  in- 
terested in  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  govern- 
ment? 

Answer.  Not  the  least. 

Question.  You  had  no  interest  in  it? 

Answer.  Not  a  particle,  in  any  manner  or  shape  ;  nor  could  have 
had  in  any  way. 

Robert  W.  Latham,  sworn. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  John  B.  Haskin: 

Question  1.   Where  do  you  reside? 
Answer.  In  Brooklyn,  New  York. 
Question  2.   How  long  have  you  resided  there? 
Answer.  Pretty  nearly  all  the  time  since  February,  1S55.     I  moved 
my  i'aiuily  there  in  1850. 

Question  3.  From  Virginia? 


TESTIMONY.  289 

Answer.  I  left  this  place  for  Brooklyn. 
Question  4.  Did  you  formerly  reside  in  Yirgina  ? 
Answer  I  was  born  and  raised  in  Virginia  and  lived  there  thirty 
odd  years  of  my  life. 

Question  5.   What  is  your  business  ? 

Answer.  My  business  in  New  York  was  that  of  an  assistant  in  John 
Thompson's  banking  house. 

Question  6.  What  was  your  business  in  the  month  of  March,  April, 
May,  June  and  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  was  the  president  of  the  Pittsburg  and  Steubenville 
railroad  up  to  the  11th  of  January  last.  I  was  elected  president  of 
that  road  about  the  23d  of  April,  1856,  up  to  the  11th  of  January, 
1858. 

Question  7.  Were  you  engaged  in  any  other  busines  ? 
Answer.  I  sometimes  attended  to  little  agencies,  negotiating  bonds, 
selling  securities,  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Question  8,  Since  that  time  what  has  your  business  been  ? 
Answer.  I  have  been  engaged  by  Governor  Floyd  to  attend  to  his 
coal  and  salt  works  and  any   other  matter  he  had  to  attend  to  since 
that  time.     I  attended  to  it  partially  before  but  not  regularly. 

Question  9.  Have  you,  since  March,  1857,  been  interested  in  any 
contract  with  the  War  Department  and  if  so  state  specifically  what 
they  were  ? 

Answer.  There  are  some  little  items  I  have  been  interested  in  that 
have  amounted  to,  I  suppose,  the  sum  of  $1,500. 
Question  10.  What  were  ihey? 

Answer.  There  was  a  little  matter  of  furnishing  supplies  to  the  ac- 
cjueduct  here. 

Question  11.  Is  there  any  other? 

Answer.  There  is  a  matter  in  which  I  have  a  small  interest,  though 
I  have  not  yet  received  anything  ;  it  is  the  heating  of  the  post  office. 
The  Chairman.  That  is  not  connected  with  the  War  Department? 
Witness.  Yes,  sir,  it  is  ;  the  War  Department  gave  it  out.    I  have 
not  yet  received  anything,  and  have  no  security  ;  but  the  man  who 
got  it  told  me  that  I  should  have  a  small  interest  in  it. 
Question  12.  Have  you  a  desk  in  the  War  Department  ? 
Answer.  I  have  not. 
Question  13.  You  are  there  frequently? 
Answer.  I  go  up  there  nearly  every  day  when  I  am  in  town. 
Question  14.  During  the  time  you  were  a  member  of  the  firm  of 
Selden,  Withers  &  Co.,  had  you  any  transactions  with  Governor  Floyd  ? 
Answer.  I  had,  as  the  governor  of  Virginia. 

Question,  15.  And  from  that  time  have  you  continued  to  have  busi- 
ness with  him? 

Answer.  Sometimes  I  have  not  seen  him  for  a  year  during  that  time. 
Question  16.  Did  you  see  Governor  Floyd  during  the  month  of 
March,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  did  ;  I  was  here  on  the  5th  of  March,  and  staid  three 
or  four  days. 

Question  17.  Did  you  see  him  during  that  time? 
Answer.  I  did. 

H.  Rep.  Com.  540 19 


290  TESTIMONY. 

Question  18.  Did  you  see  Governor  Floyd  in  the  month  of  April, 
1857? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question  19.  Did  you  see  him  between  the  1st  and  the  28th  of  April? 

Answer.  I  did,  but  I  could  not  state  the  date. 

Question  20.  Do  you  know  Kichard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question  21.  How  long  have  you  known  him? 

Answer.  I  suppose  ever  since  I  went  to  New  York  in  1855  ? 

Question  22.  Did  you  see  Richard  Schell  in  the  month  of  March, 
1857? 

Answer.  I  should  think  I  did  ;  I  saw  him  nearly  every  week  w^hen 
I  was  in  New  York. 

Question  23.  Did  you  see  him  in  April,  1857  ? 

Answer.  If  I  was  not  travelling,  I  have  no  doubt  I  did. 

Question  24.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  an  appropriation  had 
been  made  for  the  commencement  of  a  fortification  opposite  Fort 
Schuyler,  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  could  not  state  the  date. 

Question  25.  Do  you  recollect  the  month  ? 

Answer.     I  think  I  heard  it  in  April.     I  heard  it  talked  of. 

Question  26.   From  whom  did  you  learn  it? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question  27.  Was  it  from  Richard  Schell? 

Answer.  I  think  not. 

Question  28.  Was  it  from  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  I  did  not  have  much  acquaintance  with  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more  for  some  time  after  this  purchase  was  made  by  the  government. 

Question  29.  You  had  met  him  before  the  sale? 

Answer,  I  do  not  know  whether  I  met  him  before  the  sale  or  not. 
I  have  been  thinking  very  much  over  this  thing  since  I  was  sum- 
moned, to  refresh  my  mind  upon  the  subject ;  but  I  do  not  recollect 
any  conversation  I  had  with  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  about  the  matter 
until  it  was  over. 

Question  30.  Did  you  hear  that  the  appropriation  had  been  made 
for  the  purchase  of  this  property  in  Washington  or  in  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  remember.     I  am  travelling  nearl}  all  the  time. 

Question  31.  Did  you  hear  it  from  Governor  Floyd? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question  32.  Did  you  hear  it  from  any  one  in  the  War  Department? 

Answer.  I  was  not  acquainted  with  any  one  in  the  War  Depart- 
ment when  Governor  Floyd  went  there  ;  I  did  not  know  a  head  of  a 
bureau  in  Governor  Floyd's  department,  except  General  Jesup. 

Question  33.  You  say  you  were  here  in  April.  Did  you  go  to  New 
York  in  April  and  take  any  interest,  in  any  way,  in  relation  to  the 
sale  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question  34.  Did  you,  in  the  month  of  March  or  April,  1857,  see 
Mr.  Mather? 

Answer.  I  think  I  did. 

Question  35.  Where? 


TESTIMONY.  291 

Answer.  I  think  I  saw  him  in  Washington,  hut  I  do  not  know  at 
what  time  it  was  ;  I  was  introduced  to  him  in  New  York,  I  think,  in 
May  or  June. 

Question  36.  Did  you  see  him  in  Washington  hefore  you  were  in- 
troduced to  him  in  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not.  After  I  saw  him  there  I  saw  him  in  Washington. 

Question  37.  Had  you  known  him  hefore? 

Answer.  I  had  not. 

Question  38.  Who  introduced  Mr.  Mather  to  you? 

Answer.  I  think  I  may  have  met  him  at  a  dinner  party  ;  I  do  not 
recollect  how  I  made  his  acquaintance,  hut  I  may  have  met  him  at  a 
dinner  party  ;  I  dined  twice  at  Richard  Schell's,  and  I  think  Mather 
was  there. 

Question  39.  Dined  with  Schell  here  or  in  New  York? 

Answer.  In  New  York.  I  would  not  state  positively  that  I  met  him 
there,  hut  I  think  I  did. 

Question  40.   When  was  this? 

Answer.  I  could  not  state  when  it  was  ;  I  did  not  charge  my 
memory  at  the  time. 

Question  41.  Did  you  meet  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  there  ? 

Answer.  I  never  saw  him  there,  that  I  recollect. 

Question  42.  In  the  month  of  March  or  April,  1857,  had  you  any 
conversation  with  Richard  Schell  in  relation  to  the  sale  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Richard  Schell  mentioned  it  to  me,  but  whether  it 
was  in  April  or  May,  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question  43.  What  did  he  say  to  you  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  trying  to  think,  hut  I  cannot  recollect. 

Question  44.  Was  anything  said  at  the  dinner  party  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  No  business  was  talked  of,  I  believe,  at  the  dinner  party. 

Question  45.  Did  you  ever  furnish  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  John  C. 
Mather  or  Richard  Schell  a  book  containing  the  appropriations  for 
fortifications  passed  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  ? 

Answer.  I  never  did,  to  ray  recollection. 

Question  46.  Had  you  business  relations  with  Richard  Schell  in 
March  or  April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  have  had  business  relations  with  Richard  Schell  nearly 
all  along. 

Question  47.  From  what  period  ? 

Answer.  I  think  my  first  business  relations  commenced  in  1856. 

Question  48.   What  month  in  1856? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  during  the  summer,  but  I  cannot  recollect 
the  month. 

Question  49.  Have  you  had  business  relations  with  him  during  all 
the  time  since  then  down  to  the  present? 

Answer.  I  have  had  business  instead  of  intimate  relations  with  him. 
He  has  raised  me  money  in  New  York  and  I  have  raised  him  some  money. 

Question  50.  During  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June  or 
July,  1857,  did  he  raise  money  for  you? 

Answer.  If  I  wanted  any  he  did. 

Question  51.  I  asked  you  whether  he  raised  you  any  money  during 
those  months  ? 


292  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  think  be  did  ;  I  think  I  made  some  negotiations  for  it; 

am  certain  I  did.  I  think  I  borrowed  some  money  on  railroad  bonds 

from  him.     I  was  then  the  president  of  a  railroad  company.     I  got 

him  to  discount  several  drafts  for  me  on  a  man  named  Courteny,  and 

one  or  two  other  parties  in  New  York. 

Question  52.  Did  he  during  those  months  discount  paper  for  Gov. 
Floyd? 

Answer.  I  think  he  did  ;  I  am  certain  he  did.  I  asked  him  to 
do  it,  and  wanted  it  for  Gov.  Floyd. 

Question  53.  To  what  extent? 

Answer.  To  the  extent  of  $4,000  or  $5,000. 

Question  54.  Did  he  not  discount  Governor  Floyd's  paper  to  the 
extent  of  $15,000  or  $20,000? 

Answer.  He  did  not.     I  do  not  think  it  exceeded  $7,000. 

Question  55.  What  was  done  with  the  proceeds  of  those  discounts? 

Answer.  I  used  them  in  Governor  Floyd's  business,  and  according 
to  his  instructions. 

Question  56.  In  his  private  business? 

Answer.  Yes;  I  can  give  you  the  particulars  of  his  business  if 
you  desire  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  have  no  objection  if  the  committee  desire  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  do  not  think  we  need  it. 

Mr.  Wood.  If  it  has  any  connexion  with  this  investigation  we 
should  know  it,  but  if  not,  it  ought  all  to  be  excluded. 

Witness.  None  of  it  has  any  connexion  with  this  investigation. 

Question  57.  Was  Richard  Schell,  through  you,  the  broker  of  Gov- 
ernor Floyd  during  that  time  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  Richard  Schell  ever  loaned  Governor 
Floyd  a  dollar  of  money,  or  made  a  negotiation  with  Governor  Floyd 
directly  during  his  life. 

Question  58.  What  connexion  existed  between  John  C.  Mather, 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  Richard  Schell,  and  George  Irving,  or  either 
of  them  and  yourself  during  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June, 
and  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  only  knew  them. 

Question  59.  Have  you  had  no  business  relations  with  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore  ? 

Answer.  He  asked  me  a  month  or  two  ago  to  get  a  couple  of  notes 
of  his  for  about  $500  discounted,  which  I  did  at  a  banking  house  in 
this  city. 

Question  60.  Had  you  not  an  understanding  with  Richard  Schell, 
John  C.  Mather,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  and  George  Irving,  or  either 
of  them,  that  you  were  to  use  your  influence  at  the  War  Department 
in  securing  the  speedy  consummation  of  the  purchase  of  the  Wilkins' 
Point  property  by  the  government? 

Answer.  As  well  as  I  remember,  this  thing  was  all  closed  up  be- 
fore I  ever  heard  that  it  was  going  on  ;  it  was  either  closed  up,  or 
about  being  closed  up,  when  I  heard  of  it. 

Question  61.  When  was  it  closed  up? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  ;  but  when  I  heard  of  it  it  was  over,  or 
about  over. 


TESTIMONY.  293 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  given  an  answer  to  the  question  ? 

Witness.  I  will  answer  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  is,  Had  you  not  an  understanding  with 
Richard  Schell,  John  C.  Mather,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  and  George 
Irving,  or  either  of  them,  that  you  were  to  use  your  influence  at  the 
War  Department  in  securing  the  speedy  consummation  of  the  pur- 
chase of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  by  the  government? 

Answer.  I  had  no  such  understanding  with  them. 

Question  62.  Or  the  consummation  of  that  sale  after  it  had  been 
agreed  upon  ? 

Answer.  I  had  no  understanding  with  them  at  all. 

Question  63.  Had  you  any  conversation  in  March  with  Governor 
Floyd  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  this  property  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  thinking  about  the  conversations  which  passed 
between  General  Floyd  and  myself  in  reference  to  the  purchase  of  this 
property,  and  I  went  so  far  as  to  speak  to  him  about  it  lately,  and 
to  say  to  him  that  I  recollected  that  he  had  remarked  that  the  prop- 
erty was  high,  or  very  high  ;  and  he  remarked  that  he  had  stated 
that  he  thought  it  was  very  high ;  and  he  stated  further  to  me  that 
he  had  had  no  conversation  with  me  at  all,  until  after  he  had  made 
the  purchase. 

Question  64.  Do  you  remember  having  any  conversation  with  him 
during  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  or  June,  on  the  subject? 

Answer.  I  think  these  conversations  must  have  occurred  either  in 
April  or  May  in  reference  to  his  declarations  that  the  property  was 
high  but  the  sale  had  been  made.  He  says  that  we  had  no  conversation 
after  the  sale  ;  and  I  recollect  distinctly  the  sale,  but  the  date  of  it  I 
do  not  recollect. 

Question  65.  State,  of  your  own  knowledge,  whether  you  had  a  con- 
versation with  him  in  April  or  May  in  relation  to  the  subject? 

Answer.  My  own  knowledge  is,  that  I  had  a  conversation  with  him 
in  April  or  May,  and  that  this  was  the  conversation. 

Question  66.  Was  that  all  that  passed  between  you  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection  except  of  this  statement. 

Question  67.  Did  you  not  urge  upon  Governor  Floyd  the  accept- 
ance of  the  proposition  of  the  man  who  proposed  to  sell  the  property 
to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  had  accepted  the  offer  then. 

Question  68.  Did  you  ever  urge  upon  him  the  acceptance  of  the 
offer  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  ever  did. 

Question  69.  Did  you,  on  behalf  of  Richard  Schell,  desire  Governor 
Floyd  to  accept  the  offer  ? 

Answer.  I  think  before  I  had  any  understanding  about  it  the  thing 
was  done. 

Question  70.  Did  you  ever  go  to  Richard  Schell  and  ask  him  what 
he  was  doing  about  the  purchase  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Question  71.  Do  you  know  who  were  interested  in  the  sale  of  this 
property  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 


294  TESTIMONY. 

Question  72.  Do  you  know  whether  Eichard  Schell  was  interested 
or  not  in  the  sale  of  this  property  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  was  of  opinion  that  he  had  some  interest  in  it.  He  cer- 
tainly had  something  to  do  with  it,  hecause  it  was  a  matter  generally 
talked  of.  ^ 

Questi(  n  73.  Did  he  ever  inform  you  that  he  had  an  interest  in  it  ? 

Answer.  I  think  he  told  me  that  he  had  loaned  a  large  amount  of 
money  to  Mr.  Irving. 

Question  74.  Do  you  know  Mr.  George  Irving? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  Irving,  but  I  never  saw  him  until  after  this 
thing  occurred.     I  did  not  know  there  was  such  a  man  in  existence. 

Question  75.  Did  you  know  him  before  the  title  was  passed  to  the 
government,  and  after  the  sale  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  saw  him  in  June  or  July. 

Question  76.  Where? 

Answer.  In  New  York. 

Question  77.  At  what  place  ? 

Answer.  In  General  Prosper  M.  Wetmore's  office,  I  think. 

Question  78.  Who  introduced  Mr.  Irving  to  you? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  ;  it  may  have  been  General  Wetmore.  I 
had  no  acquaintance  with  him  before. 

Question  79.  Did  you  ever  inform  Governor  Floyd  that  John  C. 
Mather,  Eichard  Schell,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  or  any  other  person 
besides  George  Irving  had  an  interest  in  the  sale  of  this  property  to 
the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  never  did  that  I  have  a  recollection  of. 

Question  80.  Did  you  not,  at  the  request  of  Eichard  Schell,  Pros- 
per M.  Wetmore,  and  John  C.  Mather,  or  either  of  them,  inform 
Governor  Floyd  that  they  had  some  interest  in  this  sale  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question  81.  Did  you  learn  from  Eichard  Schell,  in  the  months  of 
May  or  June,  that  this  property  was  about  being  sold  to  the  govern- 
ment? 

Answer.  I  before  said  that  I  heard  of  it  after  it  was  sold. 

Question  82.  Did  he  inform  y5u  of  it  during  these  months  ? 

Answer.  I  think  I  heard  him  mention  the  matter. 

Question  83.  About  its  being  sold  ? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  84.  During  these  months  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  which  it  was. 

Question  85.  When  you  learned  that  this  property  was  about  being 
sold  to  the  government  did  you  not  interest  yourself  in  having  the 
sale  consummated  ? 

Answer.  I  tell  you  that  the  property  was  sold;  When  I  under- 
stood that  the  property  was  in  the  market,  it  was  about  being  closed 
or  sold. 

The  Chairman.  Permit  me  to  state  that  there  was  an  acceptance  of 
George  Irving's  offer  to  sell  on  the  28th  of  April,  but  that  that  sale 
was  not  consummated  until  a  long  time  subsequent.  I  ask  you  whether 
you  did  not,  after  being  informed  by  Schell  that  the   property  was 


TESTIMONY.  295 

about  being  sold  to  the  government,  and  before  the  title  and  deeds 
passed,  interest  yourself  to  have  the  thing  closed  and  consummated? 

Answer.  I  could  not  have  done  it.  I  could  not  have  assisted  to- 
wards it,  and  did  not.  I  could  not  have  assisted  towards  it  if  I  attempt- 
ed it. 

Question  86.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  George  Irving's  offer  to  sell  this 
property  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  saw  it  since  this  committee  has  been  appointed. 

Question  87.  Did  you  see  it  before? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  1  did.     I  am  certain  I  did  not. 

Question  88.  Did  Governor  Floyd  inform  you  when  he  had  ac- 
cepted this  offer  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not.  I  might  not  have  been  here,  and  I  do  not 
suppose  I  inquired  of  him. 

Question  89.   Were  you  here  on  the  6th  of  July  last? 

Answer.  I  was  in  New  York  on  the  4th  of  July  last,  certain,  be- 
cause I  paid  a  great  many  visits  there. 

Question  90.  Were  you  here  on  the  6th  of  July? 

Answer.  I  think  not.  I  think  I  confounded  July  with  January  in 
my  last  answer  in  which  I  stated  I  paid  a  great  many  visits.  I  think 
I  was  in  New  York  on  the  4th  of  July.  The  reason  I  am  certain  I 
was  not  here  is,  that  I  understand  Mr.  William  C.  Wetmore,  a  lawyer^ 
was  here  presenting  this  claim  before  the  government,  and  if  I  had 
been  in  Washington  city  I  have  no  doubt  that  I  should  have  seen  him, 
and  I  never  saw  him  until  some  time  ago  in  New  York. 

Question  91.  Why  would  you  have  seen  him? 

Answer.  Because  I  am  at  the  War  Department  nearly  every  day 
when  I  am  here,  and  if  I  had  been  here  when  he  was  here  attending 
to  the  business  I  could  not  have  missed  him. 

Question  92.  Were  you  here  on  the  6th,  7th,  and  8th  of  July,  1857? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  was  here. 

Question  93.  On  either  of  these  days  had  you  any  communication, 
orally  or  in  writing,  in  relation  to  this  matter  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  recollect  of. 

Question  94.  Do  you  recollect  being  at  the  War  Department  be- 
tween the  24th  and  29th  of  April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question  95.  Do  you  recollect  receiving  any  communication  from 
Richard  Schell  or  Augustus  Schell  during  that  month  in  relation  to  this 
matter,  either  in  writing  or  orally  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  communication.  I  never 
received  a  communication  of  any  sort  from  Augustus  Schell,  so  far  as 
I  have  any  recollection. 

Question  96.  Did  you  receive  any  from  Richard  Schell? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  receiving  any  communication  at 
that  time  from  him,  orally  or  in  writing. 

Question  97.  Between  the  23d  and  the  29th  of  April,  1857,  had 
you  any  conversation  with  Governor  Floyd  in  relation  to  this  pur- 
chase ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 


296  TESTIMONY. 

Question  98.  You  think  you  were  at  the  War  Department  during 
that  time  ? 

Answer.  If  I  was  in  town. 

Question  99.  Do  you  not  remember  being  in  town  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.     I  spend  very  little  of  my  time  here. 

Question  100.  Do  you  know  what  the  agreement  was  as  to  the  pay- 
ment by  the  government  on  account  of  this  purchase  ?  ' 

Answer.   I  do  not. 

Question  101.  Did  you  never  know? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  of  it  since. 

Question  102.  From  whom? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  it  from  general  talk. 

Question  103.  Did  you  ever  write  Richard  Schell,  or  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more,  or  John  C.  Mather,  or  George  Irving,  in  relation  to  the  time 
the  payment  would  be  made  by  the  government  on  account  of  this 
purchase  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect.  If  I  heard  anything  about  it,  I  may 
have  written  ;  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  it.  If  they  asked  me  and 
I  inquired,  I  wrote,  no  doubt. 

Question  104.  Were  you  ever  on  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Never. 

Question  105.  Did  you  ever  see  it?     ^ 

Answer.  Never  in  my  life.     I  never  saw  a  man  who  did  see  it  to 
knowledge,  except  General  Wetmore,  who  told  me  he  had  been  on  it. 

Question  106.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  It  was  some  short  time  ago,  since  the  appointment  of  this 
committee. 

After  reading  over  his  testimony  on  the  18th  of  May,  Mr.  Latham 
appeared  before  the  committee  on  the  19th,  and  requested  leave  of  the 
committee  to  make  the  following  additions,  which  was  granted.  He 
amended  his  answer  to  the  9th  question  by  adding  the  following  : 

I  would  state  that  Governor  Floyd  does  not  allow  me  to  act  as 
agent  for  any  person,  or  to  take  an  interest  in  any  contract  before  his 
department ;  I  have  given  him  offence  on  several  occasions  by  trying 
to  serve  my  friends  who  wanted  patronage  from  his  office,  and  he  stated 
to  me  distinctly,  on  more  occasions  than  one,  that  I  could  not  act 
as  his  private  agent  if  I  attempted  to  interfere  with  any  business  of 
the  government  which  came  before  him. 

He  amended  his  answer  to  the  54th  question  by  adding  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Between  the  middle  of  April  and  the  1st  of  July,  1857,  Governor 
Floyd  put  in  my  hands  some  §50,000  of  Virginia  State  stocks,  and  at 
a  later  period  some  $4,000,  and  I  borrowed  of  the  president  of  the 
Bank  of  the  Republic,  New  York,  over  $30,000.  Governor  Floyd 
hardly  ever  knows  from  whom  I  borrow  money  at  the  time  it  is  ob- 
tained, and  frequently  not  until  his  account  is  rendered. 

He  amended  his  answer  to  the  G2d  question  by  adding  the  follow- 
ing: 

Mr.  Richard  Schell  did  ask  me  to  see  Governor  Floyd  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  sale  of  the  property  ;  1  do  not  remember  what  passed,  but 
suppose  I  gave  Mr.  Schell  whatever  information  I  received. 


TESTIMONY.  297 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  I  cannot  recollect  the  month,  but  I  think  it  was  in  May 
or  June. 

Wednesday,  May  19,  1858. 

K.  W.  Latham's  examination  continued. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Were  you  in  Washington,  stopping  at 
Willarcls,  on  the  23d  of  April,  1857? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you,  between  the  24th  and  28th  of  April,  1857,  meet 
John  C.  Mather  here,  or  see  him  at  the  War  Department  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect.  • 

Question.  Did  you  not  have  frequent  interviews  with  Kichard 
Schell,  John  C.  Mather,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  and  George  Irving,  or 
either  of  them,  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  this  Willett's  or 
Wilkins'  Point  property  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  Have  you,  for  yourself  or  others,  ever,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, received  any  benefit  from  the  sale  of  the  Wilkins'  or  Willett's 
Point  property  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not. 

Question.  Did  you  not,  in  March  or  April,  1857,  procure  a  book  at 
the  War  Department,  or  from  any  one  connected  with  that  depart- 
ment, containing  the  general  appropriations  by  Congress  for  fortifi- 
cation purposes  ;  and,  if  so  for  what  purpose  did  you  procure  it,  and 
what  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  procuring  a  book  ;  I  may  have  done  so. 

Question.  Did  you  not  go  to  Richard  Schell  or  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more  with  such  a  book  in  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  or 
July,  1857^  and  ask  either  of  them  what  was  being  done  in  relation  to 
the  sale  of  the  Wilkins'  or  Willett's  Point  property,  or  any  other 
property,  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  going  to  him  with  such  a  book, 
or  making  such  a  statement,  or  anything  like  it. 

Question.  Did  you  not  go  to  Richard  Schell  with  the  intention  or 
desire  of  becoming  interested  in  the  sale  of  that  property  to  the  gov- 
ernment ;  and  did  you  not  then  secure,  or  have  promised  to  you,  for 
yourself  or  others,  an  interest  in  the  proceeds  of  that  sale,  provided  it 
was  consummated  ? 

Answer.  I  never  did  go  to  him  with  such  a  proposition. 

Question.  Did  not  Richard  Schell,  in  the  months  of  March,  April, 
May,  June,  or  July,  discount  paper  for  you,  or  through  you,  for 
others,  with  the  understanding  that  in  the  event  of  the  purchase  of 
this  Wilkins'  Point  j)roperty,  or  other  property,  by  the  government, 
that  paper  was  not  to  be  redeemed  ? 

Answer.  He  never  discounted  for  me,  or  through  me  for  others, 
any  paper  that  was  not  to  be  paid.  He  never  discounted  any  paper 
for  me  with  an  understanding  that  it  was  not  to  be  paid. 

Question.  Did  not  Richard  Schell,  after  the  8th  of  July,  1857,  dis- 
count a  note  or  notes  for  you,  or  through  you  for  others,  with  the  direct 
or  indirect  understanding  that  the  money  he  so  advanced  came  out  of 


298  TESTIMONY. 

the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  Wilkins'  or  Willetts'  Point  property  to  the 
goverDment,  and  that  said  note  or  notes  were  never  to  be  redeemed  ? 

Answer.  He  did  not. 

Question.  Did  lie  not  discount  paper  for  you,  or  through  you  for 
others,  with  the  understanding  that  the  purchase  of  this  property  at 
Wilkins'  or  Willetts'  Point,  was  in  some  way  to  aid  in  its  repayment. 

Answer.  He  did  not. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  draft  given  by  the  War  De- 
partment for  $115,000,  in  payment,  or  part  payment,  for  this  property, 
went  into  the  hands  of  Kichard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Had  you  not.  an  interview  or  interviews  with  Richard 
Schell,  John  C.  Mather,  Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  and  George  Irving,  or 
either  of  them,  in  which  you  related  to  them,  or  either  of  them,  what 
part  you  took  in  urging  the  speedy  consummation  of  the  purchase  of 
this  property,  and  payment  of  the  purchase  money  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  conversation  with  them, 
or  anything  which  approached  it  in  meaning. 

Question,  Where  did  you  see  George  Irving's  offer  to  sell  this  prop- 
rty  to.  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  saw  it  at  Governor  Floyd's  house. 

Question.   When  ? 

Answer.  Since  this  investigation  has  been  ordered. 

Question.  How  came  you  to  see  it  ? 

Answer.  I  was  at  his  house  and  saw  it.  He  was  reading  some 
paj)ers  there,  and  I  looked  at  this  and  some  of  the  other  papers. 

Question.  Did  you  ask  him  to  show  you  the  papers  connected  with 
this  Wilkins'  Point  property  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not. 

Question.  Did  he  show  you  the  papers  voluntarily? 

Answer.  At  the  time  I  saw  the  paper  he  was  reading. 

Question.  Reading  this  paper  ? 

Answer.  The  papers  connected  with  this  matter. 

Question.  Did  you  then  have  a  conversation  with  him  in  relation  to 
this  whole  transaction  ? 

Answer.   I  had. 

Question.  State  the  substance  of  that  conversation  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  state  distinctly  what  occurred  ; 
it  was  a  general  talk  about  the  property,  and  about  whether  he  had 
been  cheated  in  the  purchase. 

Question.  When  did  that  occur? 

Answer.  Since  the  appointment  of  your  committe. 

The  Chairman.  This  committee  was  appointed  on  the  9th  of  Feb- 
ruary.    State,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection,  what  month  it  was. 

Witness.  I  suppose  it  was  after  that. 

Question.  Was  it  in  February  or  March  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question.   Was  it  in  April? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question,  Was  it  in  May? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was  either  in  February  or  March. 


TESTIMONY.  299 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  him  in  reference  to  this 
matter,  after  you  had  heen  subpoenaed  to  attend  here  as  a  witness? 

Answer.  I  was  subpoenaed  between  six  and  eight  o'clock  at  night, 
and  determined  to  remain.  Next  morning  I  received  a  letter  urging 
me  to  come  to  Louisa,  Kentucky.  I  felt  satisfied  that  if  I  mentioned 
the  subject  to  Governor  Floyd  he  would  not  agree  for  me  to  go,  and 
I,  therefore,  did  not  hint  it  to  him.  I  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Haskin, 
asking  the  postponement  of  my  examination  for  two  weeks,  from  the 
3d  of  May,  and  left  the  city. 

Question.  On  what  day? 

Answer.  I  addressed  you  the  letter  on  Wednesday,  and  on  Thurs- 
day I  left  for  Kentucky. 

Question.  How  did  you  send  the  letter  to  me  ? 

Answer.  I  put  it  in  at  Willard's. 

Question.  And  after  the  receipt  of  the  subpoena  you  did  not  men- 
tion the  subject  to  Floyd  ? 

Answer.  I  never  hinted  it  to  him. 

Question.  You  say  that  he  would  not  have  left  you  gone  if  he  had 
known  it ;  explain  what  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Answer.  Being  his  agent,  if  he  had  known  that  I  was  subpoenaed, 
he  never  would  have  consented  to  my  going  off.  He  stated  to  me,  on 
my  return,  that  for  one  thousand  acres  out  of  the  heart  of  his  War- 
field  estate,  he  would  not  have  had  me  leave  after  I  was  subpoenaed. 

The  Chairman.  The  letter  you  wrote  me  v/as  dated  the  28th  of 
April,  and  you  have  stated  you  were  subpoenaed  the  night  before, 
that  was  the  27th? 

Witness.  I  think  it  was. 

Question.  And  you  received  the  letter  from  Kentucky  on  the  follow- 
ing day,  when  you  wrote  me  this  letter  ? 

Answer.  I  did,  and  started  the  next  day. 

The  Chairman.  I  did  not  receive  your  letter  until  March  30,  and  I 
immediately  laid  it  before  the  committee,  and  wrote  you  a  reply. 

Question.  You  received  the  letter  informing  you  of  business  which 
called  you  to  Kentucky  on  the  28th  ? 

Answer.  I  did. 

Question.  Did  you  not  state  to  Mr.  Cole,  when  he  served  the  sub- 
poena upon  you,  that  you  had  urgent  business  which  demanded  your 
immediate  presence  in  Kentucky  ? 

Answer.  I  stated  that  I  was  just  about  to  start  for  Kentucky,  and 
was  very  sorry  that  he  had  summoned  me,  and  Mr.  Cole  replied  that 
I  could  not  go  away  without  the  consent  of  the  committee.  I  deter- 
mined to  stay  until  I  got  the  letter  from  Louisia. 

Question.  Did  you  not  telegraph  Richard  Sohell  or  any  person  in 
New  York,  in  the  month  of  April  or  May,  1857,  that  the  Secretary  of 
War  had  accepted  George  Irving' s  offer  to  sell  this  Wilkins'  or  Wil- 
lett's  Point  property  to  the  government? 

•Answer.  I  never  sent  a  telegraphic  despatch  to  Richard  Schell  or 
any  of  them  to  my  knowledge  on  any  subject. 

Question.  Did  you  not  write  to  or  telegraph  any  persons  anywhere 
in  the  months  of  April  or  May,  1857,  in  relation  to  the  sale  or  pur- 
chase of  this  Wilkins'  or  Willett's  Point  property? 


300  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  I  am  certain  I  did  not. 

Question.  How  came  you  to  have  conversations  with  Governor 
John  B.  Flo3^d  in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  this  Wilkins'  or  Wil- 
lett's  Point  property? 

Witness.  Could  you  tell  how  you  came  to  have  conversations  with 
a  man  with  whom  you  were  intimate  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  could,  certainly. 

Witness.  I  have  talked  with  Gi-overnor  Floyd  upon  almost  every 
subject,  and  I  could  not  tell  how  it  came  up. 

Question.  You  say  you  think  you  met  George  Irving  in  Prosper  M. 
Wetmore's  office  ;  did  you  not  meet  him  there  by  appointment,  or  had 
not  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  agreed  or  given  you  to  understand  that  he 
would  have  him  there,  so  that  you  could  meet  him? 

Answer.  He  did  not,  that  I  have  any  recollection  of. 

Question.  What  passed  between  George  Irving,  Prosper  M.  Wet- 
more,  and  you  at  that  interview  in  Wetmore's  office? 

Answer.  I  could  not  sav. 

Question.  Was  anything  said  to  you  at  that  interview  in  relation  to 
the  sale  of  this  Wilkins'  Point  property? 

Answer.  I  think  not. 

Question.  Did  not  Richard  Schell  know  that  you  were  the  agent 
for  Governor  Floyd  in  his  private  business  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  he  did. 

Question.  Did  you  not  so  inform  him  when  you  desired  him  to  dis- 
count paper  for  the  governor  ? 

Answer.  He  discounted  paper  for  me  for  Governor  Floyd  long  before 
I  was  Governor  Floyd's  agent. 

Question.  Have  you,  for  yourself  or  others,  borrowed  money  from 
Richard  Schell  since  June,  1857? 

Answer.  I  believe  I  borrowed  some  money  from  Richard  Schell. 

Question.  Has  that  money  ever  been  repaid,  and  was  it  not  loaned 
to  you  with  the  understanding  that  Schell  was  never  to  receive  it  back, 
but  held  himself  satisfied  with  the  amount  of  money  he  had  received 
in  payment  for  this  Wilkins'  or  Willett's  Point  property? 

Answer.  The  money  borrowed  has  been  returned.  I  think  it  was 
loaned  on  some  Virginia  State  bonds  which  Governor  Floyd  sent  me, 
and  I  have  sold  the  bonds  since  and  paid  it. 

Question.  Have  you  never  been  interested,  or  has  the  Secretary  of 
War,  John  B.  Floyd,  through  you,  never  been  interested  in  the  giving 
out  of  any  contracts,  or  the  transaction  of  any  business  by  the  War 
Department  ? 

Answer.  In  no  solitary  instance  to  the  amount  of  one  cent  ;  nor 
would  I  insult  him  by  such  an  insinuation. 

Question.  Did  you  not,  between  the  22d  and  the  27th  of  May,  meet 
Richard  Schell,  John  C.  Mather,  and  Augustus  Schell  here? 

Answer.  I  may  have  done  so. 

Question.  Did  you  not  converse  with  one  or  all  of  them  in  relati6n 
to  this  Wilkins'  Point  transaction  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  meeting  them  or  having  any 
conversation  with  them. 


TESTIMONY.  301 


Thursday,  May  20,  1858. 

Committee  met  at  10  o'clock.  Present — the  Chairman,  (Mr.  Has- 
kin,)  Mr.  Hopkins,  Mr.  Wood,  and  Mr.  Florence. 

Howell  Cobb  sworn. '  Examined  by  Mr.  Florence: 

Question.  State  to  the  committee  whether  you  recollect  of  any  con- 
versations having  been  held  in  the  Cabinet  in  relation  to  the  purchase 
of  this  Wilkins'  Point  property  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  The  subject  was  before  the  Cabinet  on  several  occasions, 
but  I  cannot  under  cake  to  state  the  conversations  that  occurred  in 
detail  in  reference  to  it.  Some  of  the  facts  connected  with  it  are  very 
fresh  in  my  memory  and  others  are  very  indistinct.  I  recollect  that 
Governor  Floyd  brought  the  question  before  the  Cabinet,  and  I  think 
he  had  a  programme  of  the  land,  but  I  am  not  certain  about  it.  He 
had  some  memorandums  with  him.  The  question  of  the  value  of  the 
property  and  the  price  asked  for  it  was  discussed,  but  I  do  not  now 
recollect  the  exact  amount  of  its  value.  Not  being  connected  with 
my  department  it  did  not  attract  my  very  particular  attention.  In 
determining  upon  the  question  of  the  value,  as  well,  perhaps,  as  that 
of  the  suitableness  of  the  place  for  the  purpose,  it  was  suggested  that 
perhaps  it  would  be  as  well  to  have  the  matter  investigated  by  some 
persons  in  New  York  in  whom  the  department  placed  confidence,  and 
it  was  on  the  suggestion  of  some  one  that  a  commission  of  that  kind 
was  appointed.  I  do  not  now  recollect  who  suggested  the  names  of  Mr. 
Augustus  Schell  and  Mr.  Fowler,  but  there  is  a  very  indistinct  recol- 
lection on  my  mind  that  I  suggested  them  myself.  They  were  sug- 
gested because  they  were  the  two  ofiice-holders  of  the  government 
holding  the  two  prominent  places.  They  were  appointed.  Mr.  Fow- 
ler then  being  in  office,  and  Mr.  Schell  had  not  gone  into  office  yet, 
perhaps,  but  had  received  his  appointment.  As  to  the  details  of  the 
discussion  of  this  matter  in  Cabinet,  I  do  not  recollect;  and  perhaps 
the  reason  I  recollect  what  occurred  about  these  two  commissioners 
was  the  fact  that  it  seemed  very  proper  to  me  that  two  officers  of  the 
government  should  be  sent,  and  my  mind  was  impressed  with  the 
idea  that  it  was  the  best  protection  the  government  could  have. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  (Mr.  Haskin  :) 

Question.  Did  Governor  Floyd  state  in  the  Cabinet  that  an  act  had 
been,  or  was  about  being,  passed  to  condemn  this  property? 

Answer.  I  cannot  recollect  that  any  conversation  occurred  on  that 
subject.  The  matter  was  up  in  the  early  stage  of  the  administration, 
when  a  great  many  questions  were  under  consideration,  and  this 
business  connected  with  another  department  was  not  apt  to  occupy 
my  special  attention.  If  there  was  a  discussion  of  that  kind  it  has 
passed  from  my  mind. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  whether  Governor  Floyd  stated  in 
Cabinet  that  the  property  could  have  been  obtained  prior  to  the  first 
of  April  for  $100,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  the  amounts  which  were  mentioned. 


302  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  Grovernor  Floyd  sub- 
mitted to  the  Cabinet  the  corrrespondence  which  passed  between 
General  Totten,  chief  of  the  engineer  bureau,  and  the  owner  of  this 
property  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  now  recollect  whether  he  did  or  not.  I  know 
there  was  a  good  deal  of  conversation  in  regard  to  the  price  of  this 
property,  and  the  reasons  why  the  price  was  larger  than  what  we 
thought  the  land  was  worth  ;  but  I  cannot  speak  with  any  certainty 
as  to  the  details  submitted  at  the  time.  The  subject  was  up  on  more 
than  one  occasion,  and  the  conversations  in  relation  to  it  went  pretty 
fully  into  details,  calculations  being  made  as  we  were  sitting  around 
the  table  as  to  what  would  be  the  amount  per  acre,  but  the  details  I 
forget. 

[The  letter  of  Governor  Floyd,  dated  Washington,  April  13,  1857^, 
to  Augustus  Schell,  which  letter  appears  in  Governor  Floyd's  testi- 
mony, was  here  shown  witness.] 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  whether  that  letter  was  submitted  to  the 
Cabinet  by  Governor  Floyd. 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect.  The  failure  on  my  part  to  recollect 
any  of  these  conversations  in  the  Cabinet  ought  not,  for  the  reason 
I  have  stated,  to  be  regarded  as  the  slightest  evidence  that  they  did 
not  occur.  At  that  time  the  Cabinet  met  every  day,  and  was  in  ses- 
sion ^ve  times  a  day,  and  a  great  many  questions  were  up  ;  my 
memory  is  not  the  best  under  any  circumstances,  but  under  these 
circumstances  no  one  could  recollect 

Question.  Was  the  offer  of  Mr.  Irving,  the  nominal  owner  of  the 
property,  submitted  to  the  Cabinet  by  Governor  Floyd  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  say. 

Question.  Was  the  endorsement  of  Governor  Floyd  upon  the  back 
of  Irving's  offer  accepting  it  shown  to  the  Cabinet,  and  did  it  meet 
with  their  approval  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not  able  to  answer  distinctly  as  to  that.  My  recollec- 
tion is  that  in  the  conversations  which  occurred  in  the  Cabinet  upon  this 
subject  the  negotiations  were  explained  to  the  Cabinet,  and  the  offers 
that  had  been  made,  and  though  I  do  not  recollect  that  any  formal  de- 
cision was  come  to,  there  was  a  general  concurrence  upon  the  propriety 
of  the  policy  that  ought  to  be  pursued  in  reference  to  it, 

Question.  A  general  concurrence  in  the  propriety  of  the  acceptance 
of  this  offer. 

Answer.  A  general  concurrence  of  opinion  as  to  what  was  agreed 
upon  there,  in  the  view  of  the  Cabinet  in  reference  to  it  ;  but  it  is 
utterly  impossible  for  me  to  recollect  what  that  was. 

Question.  Was  the  fact  ever  called  to  the  attention  of  the  Cabinet, 
when  this  offer  asking  $200,000  for  the  property  was  under  considera- 
tion that  the  amount  appropriated  by  Congress  for  the  fortification 
was  $150,000. 

Answer.  If  there  was  any  dissension  on  that  point  it  has  escaped 
my  recollection. 

Question.  Was  the  fact  called  to  the  attention  of  the  Cabinet  by 
Governor  Floyd  that  this  propertv  could  have  been  purchased  prior 
to  the  first  of  April  for  $100,000  ? 


TESTIMONY.  303 

Answer.  I  cannot  pretend  to  recollect  any  of  these  facts.  The 
amount  of  the  appropriation  was  referred  to,  because  we  had  the 
statute  before  us,  but  what  the  appropriation  was,  and  the  price  asked 
for  the  property,  I  have  forgotten. 

Question.  The  price  paid  for  the  property  was  $200,000,  and  the 
appropriation  for  the  purpose  by  Congress  was  $150,000  ;  I  desire  to 
know  whether  the  Cabinet  approved  of  the  purchase  of  this  land  at 
$200,000,  when  only  $150,000  had  been  appropriated? 

Answer.  I  do  not  now  recollect  the  discussion  on  that  point.  It 
may  have  been ;  but  if  so,  it  has  passed  from  my  memory. 

Question.  Did  the  Cabinet  confine  their  discussion  to  the  best  mode 
of  obtaining  this  property  by  issuing  this  commission,  or  otherwise  ? 
Answer.  You  perceive  that  this  matter  was  up  on  more  than  one 
occasion,  and  I  cannot  undertake  to  state  what  the  discussion  was 
confined  to,  or  how  much  ground  was  covered  by  it,  for  the  simple 
reason  I  have  already  given ;  my  memory  is  too  indistinct  as  to  what 
occurred.  I  never  supposed  the  matter  would  again  be  referred  to, 
and  I  did  not  tax  my  memory  with  it. 

Question.  Was  the  subject  of  the  purchase  of  this  property,  and 
the  price  the  government  ought  to  pay,  ever  discussed  in  Cabinet  after 
the  appointment  of  the  commission  to  which  you  have  referred  ? 

Answer.  At  what  time  the  discussions  in  Cabinet  in  relation  to  this 
subject  took  place,  whether  before  or  after  the  appointment,  (except 
the  meeting  at  which  it  was  agreed  that  these  gentlemen  should  be 
requested  to  examine  into  the  matter,)  I  do  not  now  recollect.  I  think 
it  likely  that  there  were  discussions  afterwards,  but  I  do  not  recollect. 
Question.  Was  your  special  attention  called  to  this  subject  ?  . 
Answer.  It  was  not  called  further  than  in  the  discussions  which 
took  place  in  Cabinet.  If  this  business  had  been  connected  with  my 
department,  my  recollection  would  have  been  far  more  distinct ;  and  I 
have  no  doubt  that  Governor  Floyd's  recollection  in  relation  to  the 
matter  is  far  more  distinct  and  more  to  be  relied  upon  than  mine. 

Question.  At  that  time  Mr.  Redfield  was  the  collector  of  New  York, 
was  he  not  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Schell  was  appointed  some  time  before  that, 
and  his  appointment  took  effect  in  July.  He  was  the  appointee  of 
this  administration  some  time  before  he  went  into  office. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  conversations  with  John  C.  Mather, 
Richard  Schell,  or  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in  relation  to  this  purchase  ? 
Answer.  None  at  any  time,  that  I  recollect  of. 
Question,  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  In  the  purchase  of  property  by  the  gov- 
ernment is  there  any  fixed  rule  that  it  shall  be  taken  under  an  act 
of  condemnation,  or  anything  of  that  kind? 

Answer.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  fixed  rule  on  the  subject.  In  each 
case  the  course  is  pursued  which  is  thought  best.  Sometimes  there 
are  circumstances  which  makes  it  necessary  to  proceed  by  a  condem- 
nation. My  own  idea  is  that  the  government  ought  to  resort  to  con- 
demnation as  little  as  possible.  It  is  a  very  odious  mode  of  getting 
possession  of  property,  and  ought  to  be  avoided  when  it  can  ;  but 
there  are  cases  in  which  you  are  compelled  to  resort  to  it.  There  is 
no  invariable  rule  on  the  subject. 


304  TESTIMONY. 


Friday,  May  21,  1858. 

Committee  met  at  10^  o'clock.  Present — Messrs.  Haskin,  Wood, 
and  Florence. 

E.  Crosswell,  sworn.     Examined  by  the  Chairman  : 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  business  or  pro- 
fession ? 

Answer.  I  am  engaged  as  one  of  the  acting  directors  of  the  United 
States  American  Steamship  Company.  My  residence  is  at  Hastings, 
New  York. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  an  appropriation  made  by  Congress  for 
the  commencement  of  a  fortification  opposite  Fort  Schuyler  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  knowledge  as  to  when  it  was  made  or  what  the 
amount  was.  I  heard  something  about  it  through  the  newspapers, 
but  I  never  taxed  my  mind  with  it. 

Question.  During  the  months  of  March,"  April,  May,  June,  and 
July  did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  John  C.  Mather  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  at  any  time. 

Question.  Did  you  during  these  months  have  any  conversation  in 
relation  to  the  subject  with  Kichard  Schell  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any. 

Question.  Did  you  have  any  with  Augustus  Schell? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  George  Irving? 

Answer.  I  have  had  no  acquaintance  with  him  in  New  York.  I 
was  introduced  to  him  here. 

Question.  Before  the  consummation  of  the  purchase  of  this  property 
by  the  government  did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  in  relation 
to  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  none. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  I  have  known  him  twenty  years. 

Question.  During  the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  or  July, 
1857,  had  you  any  conversations  with  him  in  relation  to  the  purchase 
of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  remember.  I  will  here  state  that  I  have  no 
recollection  of  having  heard  anything  connected  with  the  matter  until 
it  was  talked  of  in  the  newspapers  and  came  up  here. 

Question.  Were  you  here  in  April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  think  1  was. 

Question.  Did  you  at  that  time  have  any  conversation  with  Gov- 
ernor Floyd,  Mr.  Latham,  or  Mr.  Drinkard,  in  relation  to  this  matter? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  None  at  all? 

Answer.  None  whatever. 
*"    Question.  You  know  nothing  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  con- 
nected with   the  sale   and  purchase  of  this  property  by  the   govern- 
ment ? 


TESTIMONY.  305 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  heard  of  it  until  I  saw  it  in  the  news- 
papers this  November  or  December. 

Question.  You  borrowed  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  from 
one  of  the  members  of  the  committee  ;  what  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  took  a  copy  at  Mr.  Schell's  request.  When  he 
went  away  he  told  me  that  he  had  requested  a  copy  of  this  testimony, 
and  wished  me  to  get  it  and  send  it  on  to  him. 

Question.   What  was  the  object  for  your  doing  so  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  further  than  that  he  desired  it.  He  told 
me  that  he  had  requested  a  copy  of  his  testimony  from  a  member  of 
the  committee,  which  he  had  not  received,  and  he  wished  me  to  get  it 
and  send  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Florence.  Mr.  Schell  asked  me  about  obtaining  a  copy  of  his 
testimony,  and  I  told  him  I  thought  he  could  procure  a  copy  ;  but  I 
had  forgotten  it  from  that  moment  to  this.  I  told  him  that,  at  all 
events,  Mr.  Sheridan  woukl  permit  him  to  review  his  testimony. 

Mr.  Wood.  A  friend  of  Mr.  Schell's  requested  me  to  state  to  the 
committee  that  Mr.  Schell  would  like  to  have  a  copy  of  his  evidence, 
and  I  remarked  that  I  could  see  no  reason  why  he  should  not  have 
it ;  that  I  was  not  present  when  he  was  examined,  and  that  I  sliould 
like  to  see  it  myself.  I  informed  the  chairman  that  I  wished  a  copy 
of  Mr.  Schell's  testimony,  and  desired  the  clerk  to  write  it  off  for  me, 
which  he  did.  I  took  the  copy  up  to  my  hotel,  read  it  over,  and  gave 
it  to  Mr.  Crosswell  to  send  it  to  Mr.  Schell.  1  do  not  see  any  impro- 
priety in  Mr.  Schell  having  a  copy  of  his  testimony  sent  to  him.  He 
was  not  here  to  examine  it,  as  the  other  witnesses  have  done,  and  I 
think  he  had  a  right  to  see  it.  Iq  my  opinion,  it  was  perfectly  right, 
altliough  the  chairman  differs  with  me 

Mr.  Haskin.  We  differ  as  to  this.  I  would  have  had  no  objection 
to  Mr.  Schell  coming  here  and  reading  over  his  testimony  ;  but  it  must 
b9  a})parent  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  that  if  each  witness  is 
permitted  to  have  a  copy  of  his  evidence,  the  statements  of  those  who 
are  yet  to  be  examined  miglit  be  materially  affected  by  their  knowing 
what  bad  been  testified  to  by  those  who  had  gone  before  them  ;  and 
thus  the  object  for  which  the  committee  was  appointed  might  be  frus- 
trated. The  principal  object  I  had  in  view,  however,  in  questioning 
the  witness  about  Mr.  Schell's  evidence  was  to  ascertain  whether  he 
had  furnished  copies  of  it  to  any  senators  ? 

Witness.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  any  of  them  saw  it.  I  will  say 
this  :  Mr.  Horace  F.  Clark  asked  me,  whilst  I  had  a  copy  of  the  evi- 
dence lying  on  my  room-table,  whether  I  had  seen  it,  and  I  told  him 
that  I  had  a  copy  of  it,  and  if  he  came  to  my  room  he  could  see  it ; 
but  he  did  not  come. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Horace  F.  Clark  asked  me  about  his  evidence 
and  I  told  him,  as  near  as  I  could  recollect,  everything  he  swore  to. 
I  know  his  examination  was  a  satisiactory  one,  [and  proved  to  me  that 
he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  combination  which  effected  the  sale  of 
this  [)roperty  to  the  government.] 

The  chairman  denied  having  uttered  the  words  as  above,  ^^and 
proved  to  me  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  combination  which 
effected  the  sale  of  the  property  to  this  government,"  and  permits  its 
H.  Rep.  Com.  5-10 20 


o06  TESTIMONY. 

publication  here  to  be  made  in  connexion  with  his  statement  in  de- 
nial contained  in  journal  page  73. 

Mr.  Wood.  That  was  an  additional  reason  for  my  supposing  that 
there  could  be  no  objection  to  his  having  a  copy  of  his  evidence.  1 
have  heard  out  of  doors,  and  have  seen  in  the  newspapers,  what  has 
occurred  here  in  committee ;  and^  knowing  that  I  had  never  imparted 
such  information,  I  did  not  think  any  importance  would  be  attached 
to  giving  Mr.  Shell  a  cojDy  of  his  evidence. 

May  11,  1858. 
P.  J.  JoAcniMSEN,  sworn : 

Examined  by  the  Chairman,  Hon.  J.  B.  Haskin. 

Question.   Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  profession  ? 

x4.nswer.  I  reside  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  I  am  an  attorney  at 
law. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  the  assistant  United  States  dis- 
trict attorney  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York  ? 

Answer.  I  went  into  office  on  the  4th  of  September,  1854^  remained 
in  during  the  whole  of  Mr.  Pierce's  administration,  and  am  still  act- 
ing in  the  capacity  of  substitute  district  attorney,  which  office  was  con- 
ferred on  me  in  November,  1856,  by  Mr.  McClelland  and  Mr.  McKeon, 
under  the  act  of  August,  1856. 

Question.  State  what  you  know  in  relation  to  the  sale  and  purchase 
of  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  by  the  government,  in  1857,  for  forti- 
fication purposes? 

Answer.  I  know  nothing  in  regard  to  the  purchase  or  sale  of  the 
property,  except  so  far  as  it  was  connected  with  the  request  made  by 
the  War  Department  to  examine  the  title.  I  think  in  the  latter  part 
of  May,  1857,  the  Secretary  of  War  sent  to  the  district  attorney  to  in- 
vestigate the  title  to  what  we  know  as  Willett's  Point,  and  it  was  re- 
ferred by  me  at  once  to  Mr.  Benton,  a  gentleman  who  assisted  us  in 
the  searching  of  titles.  He  had  it  in  hand  until,  I  think,  the  16th  or 
18th  of  June,  when  he  returned  the  paper  to  me  saying  that  he  had 
made  some  progress  in  the  matter,  but  was  going  away  to  see  his  son 
and  could  not  attend  to  it  further  ;  he  also  told  me  tliat  Wm.  C.  Wet- 
more,  and  R.  H.  Bowne,  were  the  counsel  lor  the  sellers  ;  that  he  had 
seen  them  and  had  some  communication  with  them,  and  that  there 
were  several  points  that  required  attention.  There  were  some  incum- 
brances upon  the  property,  and,  in  regard  to  the  conveyances  this  fact 
appeared,  that  a  party  who  had  willed  the  property  to  his  children, 
through  whom  the  title  was  made,  had  acquired  the  property  by  a 
different  name.  1  think  the  name  was  Mears  or  Myers,  or  some  such 
name,  and  the  question  was  what  evidence  would  be  wanted  to  estab- 
lish the  identity  between  the  testator  and  the  party  who  had  taken 
the  title.  I  kept  the  papers  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  all  these 
matters  and  to  see  what  construction  could  be  put  upon  it  here  before 
going  any  lurther,  or  to  the  expense  of  having  all  the  documents  re- 
quired by  the  then  recent  instructions  of  Attorney  General  Black. 
Having  occasion  to  visit  Washington  on  the  first  of  July,  1857,  I 
brought  the  memoiandum  or  abstract,  so  far  as  it  had  been  com- 
pleted, on  with  me.     During  my  transit  here,  1  met  a  gentleman,  Mr. 


TESTIMONY.  307 

Turner,  tvIio  said  that  it  was  desirable  that  the  matter  should  be  closed 
as  early  as  possible. 

Question    Had  you  any  other  conversation  with  Mr.  Turner  ? 

Answer.  I  had.  He  stated  to  me  that  the  land  was  worth  about 
$500  an  acre  ;  that  he  had  some  land  next  to  it  which  he  would  be 
willing  to  sell  for  $500  an  acre.  I  asked  him  whether  he  would  not 
charge  for  the  advantage  of  the  land  being  on  the  Sound,  and  he  re- 
plied that  that  was  worth  very  little,  because  the  property  opposite 
could  be  had  for  $500.  He  said  that  the  parties  who  sold  this  prop- 
erty to  the  government  had  made  a  good  thing  out  of  it. 

One  of  the  reasons  why  the  matter  had  not  been  pushed  was  that  a 
map  was  wanting.  We  had  not  received  a  map  of  the  premises  from 
the  department,  and  I  called  at  the  War  Department  and  saw  the 
chief  clerk,  Mr.  Drinkard,  and  was  told  by  him  that  the  map  had 
been  sent  to  New  York  whilst  I  wns  coming  on.  A  clerk  who  had 
charge  of  the  transaction  happened  to  c  jme  in,  and  some  conversation 
took  place  between  us  as  to  whether  it  could  not  be  arranged  that  the 
mass  of  papers  need  not  be  produced  at  the  Attorney  General's  office  ; 
whether  they  would  be  satisfied  at  that  office  with ,  the  usual  New 
York  searches.  I  suppose  you  know  what  the  Attorney  General  re- 
quires? 

The  Chairman.  We  do  not. 

Witness.  The  instructions  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  4th  of 
June,  1857,  require  that  the  seller  shall  submit  certified  or  authenti- 
cated copies  of  every  conveyance  referred  to  in  the  abstract  ;  certified 
copies  of  the  wills  ;  certified  copies  of  all  the  proceedings,  the  wills, 
deeds,  and  everything  that  appears  on  the  abstract,  and  also  require 
that  the  district  attorney  shall  certify  liis  opinion  as  to  the  title  ;  that 
the  local  laws  are  correctly  given,  and  that  the  matter  is  all  straight. 

Question.    Was  this  on  the  1st  or  2d  of  July  ? 

Answer.  It  may  have  been  on  the  2d  of  July — it  was  between  the 
Ist  and  3d.  I  called  at  the  Attorney  General's  office  and  saw  Mr. 
Gillett,  ^nd  submitted  the  question,  whether  the  papers  C(juld  not  be 
dispensed  with,  and  I  was  informed  that  the  Attorney  General's  in- 
structions must  be  complied  with.  I  left  Washington  then,  and  ar- 
rived at  New  York  on  the  4th  of  July,  having  the  papers  in  my  pos- 
sion.  I  met  Mr  McKeon  in  the  office  there  and  told  him  that  I  had 
the  papers.  He  told  me  that  he  was  going  up  to  Long  Branch  for  a 
few  days  to  see  his  wife,  and  I  told  him  that  I  was  going  to  Newport 
to  see  my  family.  I  took  those  and  other  papers  with  me,  for  the 
purpose  of  closing  them  up,  and  on  Tuesday,  the  7th,  I  received  a  de- 
spatch from  Richard  Schell,  to  the  effect  that  he  wished  me  to  come 
down  to  New  York  immediately,  that  he  wished  to  em])loy  me  as 
counsel.  I  understood  from  Mr.  McKeon  that  he  left  a  copy  of  the 
desjiatch  with  you.  I  considered  very  much  whether  I  should  go 
down  ;  I  thought  that  Schell,  who  had  other  counsel,  had  no  need 
to  employ  me  as  his  counsel,  unless  he  had  some  special  object  in 
view  ;  then,  on  the  other  hand,  I  considered  that  Mr.  McKeon  was  ab- 
sent, and  that  the  parties,  under  the  circumstances,  were  entitled  to, 
without  delay,  and  that  it  was  my  duty  to  go  down  and  see  to  it,  even 
at  expense  and  inconvenience  to  myself.  I  came  down,  and  arrived 
in  New  York  on   Wednesday,  the  8th,  and  found  to  my  surprise,  Mr. 


3  OS  TESTIMONY. 

McKeon  there.  I  communicated  the  despatch  to  him,  and  called  his 
attention  to  what  seemed  to  me  a  rather  extraordinary  proposition  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Schell,  and  mentioned  to  him  the  difficulty  which  was 
in  the  way.  Whilst  we  were  conversing  Mr.  Schell  came  in  ;  he  told 
Mr.  McKeon  that  he  wanted  the  matter  closed  at  once,  and  I  told  him 
that  it  was  not  possible  to  close  it,  that  we  must  go  to  Queens  county 
and  inspect  the  records,  that  we  had  no  searches,  and  that  I  understood 
there  were  incumbrances  upon  it ;  he  said  that  Mr.  Wm.  C.  Wetmore 
was  in  Wasbington,  and  that  he  would  satisfy  the  Attorney  General 
that  the  title  was  all  straight. 

Question.  Did  he  state  that  William  C.  Wetmore  was  here  on  his 
behalf? 

Answer.  That  he  was  here  on  behalf  of  this  purchase,  lie  pro- 
duced, I  think,  a  telegraphic  despatch  from  Wetmore  to  him,  Schell, 
saying  that  McKeon  should  certify  that  the  taxes  were  paid.  I  de- 
murred to  the  proposition.  In  the  first  place,  I  thought  it  was  not 
the  official  course  to  take,  the  Attorney  General  was  overriding  the 
district  attorney  by  such  a  course  ;  but  still  we  wanted  to  accommodate 
the  parties  as  far  as  we  could,  and  it  was  settled  that  either  myself  or 
Mr.  Smith  should  go  up  into  Queens  county  that  day  and  make  the 
necessary  inquiries.  Mr.  McKeon  asked  Schell  what  object  he  had 
in  pressing  the  matter  so;  whether  he  had  any  interest  in  it;  and 
Schell's  answer  was  that  he  had  advanced  a  large  amount  of  money; 
that  money  was  getting  tight,  and  that  he  could  get  the  money  at 
once  on  Mr.  McKeon' s  certifying  that  the  taxes  were  paid.  Mr. 
McKeon  said,  "Why,  Schell,  do  you  do  business  in  that  way?  Do 
you  advance  money  on  such  contingencies?"  Mr.  Schell  replied, 
"That  is  my  business;  I  take  big  risks  to  make  big  profits,"  and, 
said  he,  "I  will  pay  you  both  a  good  counsel  fee,  provided  you  put 
this  thing  through  to-day."  Mr.  McKeon  told  him  that  counsel  fees 
were  not  needed  in  the  office ;  that  the  government  paid  for  all  services 
that  it  required  to  be  performed  ;  and  that,  if  it  was  only  a  question  of 
taxes,  if  he  (Schell)  would  indemnify  him  with  a  reasonable  amount, 
he  would  telegraph  the  Attorney  General  tliat  security  for  taxes  had 
been  deposited  with  him.     Mr.  Schell  then  drew  two  checks. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  McKeon,  in  liis  testimony,  went  over  all  that 
ground,  and  you  need  not  be  so  s[)ecific. 

Witness.  1  asked  Richard  Schell  before  Mr.  McKeon  about  the 
incumbrances  on  the  property,  and  he  said  that  Wetmore  had  the  sat- 
isfaction pieces  with  him,  and  that  as  soon  as  they  got  the  money,  or 
drait  on  Cisco,  that  the  satisfaction  pieces  would  be  delivered  here  to 
the  Attorney  General,  and  then,  perhaps,  be  transmitted  to  us  to  be 
recorded. 

Question.  Did  he  say  that  those  mortgages  had  been  j)aid,  or  did 
you  understand  him  that  the  satisfaction  pieces  had  been  left  with 
Wetmore,  who  was  to  pay  off  the  mortgages  after  the  money  was  re- 
ceived from  Cisco  ? 

Answer.  I  understood  him  that  Wetmore  had  the  satisfaction  pieces 
to  deliver.  I  suggested  to  Mr.  McKeon,  in  regard  to  the  checks  which 
Schell  placed  in  his  hands,  that  they  ought  to  be  certified,  and  I 
started  with  Schell  down  to  the  banks  to  have  them  certified.  On  the 
way  down  Nassau  street  Schell  again  proposed  that  he  would  give  me 


TESTIMONY.  309 

|500  if  I  put  the  matter  through  that  day.  I  told  him  that  I  did  not 
need  it ;  that  he  would  do  me  a  much  better  service  if  he  would  get 
his  brother  Agustus  to  appoint  a  friend  of  mine,  and  he  said  that  he 
had  no  influence  whatever.  The  next  day  Mr.  Schell  came  in  for  his 
checks,  and  said  that  the  matter  had  been  closed  ;  that  Wetmore  had 
received  the  money  and  had  come  back. 

Question.  That  was  on  the  9th  of  July? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  called  down  to  see  William  C.  Wetmore  to 
know  how  the  operation  had  been  done,  and  to  get  from  him  all  the 
searches,  &c.,  so  as  to  make  up  the  abstract,  certifying  according  to 
rule  ;  and  he  told  me  that  the  matter  had  been  settled  here  with  the 
Attorney  General,  who  did  not  require  any  certificate  from  the  district 
attorney  ;  that  he  would  take  the  word  of  any  respectable  lawyer  that 
the  matter  was  straight.  With  that  I  returned  to  the  office,  and 
proposed  to  Mr.  McKeon  to  write  to  the  Attorney  General,  enclosing 
him  all  the  papers  we  had,  and  limiting  our  statement  to  this  :  that 
if  the  matters  of  fact  were  such  as  had  been  represented  to  us  as  having 
been  stated  to  the  Attorney  General,  then  the  title  in  our  opinion  was 
good.  I  think  the  closing  words  of  the  letter  were,  "I  therefore 
limit  my  official  action  to  certifying,  that  if  the  matters  of  fact,  as 
represented  to  you,  are  ti  ue,  then  there  seems  to  be  no  objection  to 
the  title."  I  think  three  days  after  this  the  papers  were  returned 
from  the  Attorney  General's  office,  with  the  statement  that  the 
Attorney  General's  department  had  not  employed  the  district  attorney, 
and  that  the  papers  must  in  the  regular  course  be  returned  to  the 
department  from  winch  they  were  sent,  which  department  would  send 
the  papers  to  the  Attorney  General  for  his  opinion.  I  think  they 
were  so  sent.  That  is  all  I  know  about  the  matter  until  after  this 
committee  was  raised,  when  I  met  Wetmore  in  the  cars  and  asked 
him  whether  he  had  the  abstract,  and  he  said  that  the  district  attorney 
did  not  want  the  certificate  of  the  district  attorney  at  all  ;  that  he  did 
not  care  about  it. 

Question.  Did  the  United  States  district  attorney  search  the  title  of 
the  brick  church  property? 

Answer.  He  has  searched  the  title  of  every  piece  of  property  pur- 
chased by  the  government  for  light-house  purposes,  or  for  any  pur- 
pose. 

Question.  Is  it  customary  for  the  departments  to  submit  such  ques- 
tions to  the  United  States  district  attorney  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  under  the  joint  resolutions  of  1841,  and  Mr. 
Toucey's  instructions,  when  he  was  Attorney  General. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Richard  Schell  at  the  office  of  the  United 
States  district  attorney  before  the  time  you  have  specified? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  Wetmore  called  once  to  see  simply  how  the 
matter  was  getting  along,  and  to  say  that  if  any  searches  were 
wanted,  he  had  them  at  his  office.  This  was  some  time  between  the 
18th  of  June  and  the  Ist  of  July. 

Question.  Richard  Schell  never  called  at  your  office  before  the  time 
you  have  mentioned  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Augustus  Schell  ever  say  anything  to  Mr.  Keon 
about  it  ? 


310  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  George  Irving  at  the  office  of  the  United 
States  district  attorney  in  relation  to  this  matter  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  know  until  alter  this  committee  was  appointed 
that  George  Irving  had  had  anything  to  do  with  it. 

Question.  You  had  the  whole  charge  of  this  matter  in  your  ofHce? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  you  see  it  was  so  incomplete  that  I  would 
not  have  advanced  a  sixpence  on  it  at  the  time. 

Question.  Who  did  you  understand  were  the  sellers  of  this  prop- 
erty to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  understood  that  the  parties  who  owned  the  land,  and 
who  had  held  it  for  some  years. 

Question.  Do  you  know  George  Irving? 

Answer.  1  do  not.     I  never  saw  him. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in  relation  to  the 
sale  of  this  properly  to  the  government? 

Answer.  I  have  had  some  conversation  with  prosper  M.  Wetmore 
on  the  subject  since  this  committee  has  been  raised. 

Question.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  him  during  the  time  of 
the  purchase  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  know  that  there  was  any  one  in  it. 

Question.  In  the  passing  of  titles  for  other  pieces  of  property  in 
New  York  have  you  ever  known,  whilst  you  have  been  substitute  dis- 
trict attorney,  of  a  case  where  a  mortgage  has  been  left  upon  the 
property  by  the  government? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  known  of  a  case  where  the  appropriation 
was  exceeded  in  the  purclij^se? 

Answer.  No_,  sir.  In  point  of  fact,  that  would  not  be  known  in  our 
office  at  all,  because  we  do  not  know  what  appropriation  may  have 
been  made. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  any  other  persons,  before  or  after  the 
consummation  of  this  purchase,  in  relation  to  the  matter  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  why  the  attorney  general  took  the  investi- 
gation of  this  title  out  of  the  hands  of  the  district  attorney  ? 

Answer.  No.  sir;  I  know  of  no  reason. 

Question.  Did  you  know  of  any  relations  existing  between  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  and  Mr.  Schell? 

Answer.  Idid  not  know.  I  had  hcprd  of  some,  but  I  did  not  know 
of  any.  I  do  not  know  the  Secretary  of  War  ;  I  never  saw  him  in 
my  lile  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Question.  Did  Attorney  General  Gushing,  in  all  causes,,  submit  the 
titles  of  pro[)erty  the  government  was  about  purchasing  in  New  York 
to  the  United  States  district  attorney  for  that  district? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  by  law  no  })ayment  can  be  made  for  ])roperty 
exce])t  after  the  Attorney  General  has  ap})roved  the  title  and  jurisdic- 
tion has  been  ceded  to  the  State. 

Question.  Did  you  draw  up  the  act  for  the  cession  of  jurisdiction 
and  condemnation  of  this  pro})erty  ? 

Answer.  Not  that  I  recollect. 


TESTIMONY.  311 

Question.  Did  you  see  John  C.  Mather  here  at  tlie  time  you  were 
here? 

Answer.  No,  sia. 

Question.  Did  you  come  on  here  at  the  request  of  any  parties  in- 
terested in  this  matter  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  came  on  to  get  one  quarterly  salary  due  the 
30th  of  June. 

Question,  by  Mr.  Wood.  Did  you  render  any  services  for  Mr. 
Schell,  or  any  of  these  parties  in  this  transaction^  for  which  you  were 
paid  a  fee  by  them  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Friday,  Hay  28,  1858. 

Committee  met  at  lOJ  o'clock.  Present:  Mr.  Haskin,  (chairman,) 
Mr.  Wood,  and  Mr.  Florence. 

GusTAVUS  Fbings  sworn : 

Examined  by  Mr.  Florence. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  property  on  Long  Island 
known  as  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  know  Mr.  Wissman  bought  it  in  the  year  1852, 
for  .$35,000. 

Question.  What  do  you  know  of  its  present  value,  and  of  its  value 
in  April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  think  it  is  worth  §1,000  an  acre. 

Question.  How  do  you  arrive  at  that  conclusion? 

Answer.  I  bought  land  a  little  below,  twenty-two  acres,  at  §1,250 
an  acre. 

Question.  What  would  the  whole  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  be 
worth — say  110  acres? 

Answer.  To  me,  I  think,  it  would  he  worth  about  $1,000  an  acre. 
I  sold  some  parts  of  that  land  which  I  bought,  which  is  two  miles 
nearer  New  York,  at  $3,000  and  $2,500  an  acre. 

Question.  What  did  you  sell  it  for  ? 

Answer.   For  country  seats. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  the  difference  between  that  property  of 
yours  and  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  to  be  $2,000  an  acre? 

Answer.  My  property  is  nearer  the  city,  and  we  have  a  steamboat 
landing  there,  which  makes  a  better  communication. 

By  Mr.  Florence.  I  ask  you  whether  you  consider  your  property 
worth  $2,000  an  acre  more  than  this  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  I  sold  some  of  my  property  for  $3,000  an  acre,  but  I  would 
not  pay  that  for  it.  I  bought  these  22  acres  from  the  widow  Van 
Whyt  last  year,  at  $1,250  an  acre,  and  sold  at  $3,000. 

Question.  Then,  if  you  would  have  given  $1,000  an  acre  for  this 
pro})ertv  at  Wilkins'  Point,  how  much  would  you  have  sold  it  at? 

Answer.  I  think  about  $3,000.  I  bought  three  farms.  The  first 
I  bought  in  1852  ;  paid  $500  an  acre  for  it ;  laid  it  out  in  lots,  and 
sold  them  for  $120  apiece,  making  $1,500  or  $1,600  an  acre.  I  next 
bought  the  farm  adjoining.,  and  paid  $G00  an  acre  for  it,  and  sold  it 


312  TESTIMONY. 

at  the  rate  of  $2,500  an  acre  ;  this  was  three  years  ago.  Two  years 
ago  I  bought  Major's  farm,  containing  37  acres,  for  |37,000,  and  sold 
all  the  water  front  at  $3,000  an  acre_,  and  the  upper  part  for  $2,000. 
Last  year  I  bought  22  acres  from  the  widow  Van  Whyt,  at  $1,000  an 
acre,  and  I  have  the  refusal,  at  $1,000,  of  the  other  part  of  her  farm, 
containing  32  acres,  until  next  June  ;  this  land  is  just  adjoining 
College  Point.  I  sold  six  of  the  22  acres  at  $3,000  an  acre,  and  four 
acres  at  $2,500,  with  water  fronts. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Haskin. 

Question.  You  sold  these  22  acres  you  purchased  in  small  parcels, 
did  you  not  ? 

Answer.  I  sold  one  parcel  of  six  acres  and  one  of  four,  and  I  still 
have  nine  on  hand  which  I  have  not  sold. 

Question.  Is  it  not  thickly  settled  around  there? 

Answer.  When  I  bought  the  property  there  were  over  200  inhabi- 
tants, now  there  are  about  3,500.  The  farms  I  bought  do  not  inter- 
fere with  the  village,  they  lay  off  to  the  side. 

Question.  How  many  buildings  are  there  in  the  vicinity  of  your 
property  ? 

Answer  I  sold  the  first  farm  I  bought  in  lots,  bat  the  rest  in 
country  seats. 

Question.  It  is  settled  all  around  there  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  there  is  a  large  India  Rubber  Company  there. 

Question.  You  have  facilities  for  reaching  New  York  from  there  by 
steamboat  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  have  our  own  boat. 

Question.  To  what  country  do  the  people  mostly  belong  who  are 
settled  there  ? 

Answer.  They  are  Germans. 

Question.  You  are  a  German  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  have  you  been  in  this  country  ? 

Answer.  Ten  years  and  longer. 

Queston.  Wouhi  you  have  been  willing  to  purchase  the  whole  of 
this  Wilkins'  Point  j)roi)erty,  (say  110  acres,)  in  April,  1857,  and 
paid  $1,000  an  acre  for  it  ? 

Answer.  1  guess  not  ;  because  I  could  liave  done  better  with  the 
land  adjoining  mine  at  College  Point. 

Question.  Would  you  have  given  in  April,  1S57,  $1,000  an  acre 
for  this  Wilkins'  Point  property? 

Answer.   No  ;  of  course  not. 

Question.  When  you  said  that  if  you  had  bought  it  for  $1,000  an 
acre,  you  would  have  sold  it  for  $3,000,  you  meant  you  would  have 
sold  it  for  that  if  you  could  have  got  })urchasers  to  buy  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  mere  speculation  on  my  part. 

Question.   Do  you  know  Wissman  ? 

Answer.   No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  not  know  that  this  Wilkins'  Point  property  had 
been  in  the  market  for  sale? 


TESTIMONY.  313 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  knew  it  until  the  government  purchased 
it. 

Question.  How  far  is  Wilkins'  Point  from  the  place  you  bought  ? 

Answer    About  two  miles. 

Question.  ISot  further  than  that? 

Answer.  Not  further,  in  a  straight  line. 

Question.  Is  there  a  steamboat  landing  near  Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  there  was  a  steamboat  landing  at  White  Stone 
last  year. 

Question.  There  is  no  settlement  near  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  none  nearer  than  at  White  Stone. 

Ke-examined  by  Mr.  Florence. 

Question.  You  said  that  you  considered  the  property  worth  $1,000 
an  acre  in  April,  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  And  that  had  you  bought  it  you  would  have  expected  to 
sell  it  for  $3,000  an  acre? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  Henry  Day  had  28  acres  adjoining  Wilkins' 
Point,  which  he  offered  to  sell  me  for  §1,000  an  acre,  and  I  thought 
of  buying  it,  but  the  panic  coming  on  I  did  not  buy  it. 

Saturday,  3Iay  29,  1858. 

John  CiiYDER  sworn  : 
Examined  by  the  Chairman. 

Question.   What  is  your  business,  and  where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  I  am  a  merchant,  doing  business  in  New  York  city,  and 
reside  in  Queens  county,  on  Long  Island. 

Question.   Do  you  reside  at  Cryder's  Point,  in  the  town  of  Flushing? 

i\nswer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  being  called  upon  by  Mr.  Van  Nostrand 
in  relation  to  the  purchase  of  your  point,  by  the  government,  for  forti- 
fication purposes  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Van  Nostrand,  who  was  a  stranger  to  me,  never 
having  seen  him  before  to  my  recollection,  called  upon  me  in  the 
month  of  March,  1857,  and  stated  that  his  object  was  to  inquire  of 
me  the  price  of  my  place.  I  told  him  at  once  that  my  place  was  not 
for  sale,  and  that  I  did  not  know  his  object  in  making  the  inquir3\ 
He  replied  that  the  inquiry  was  made  in  behalf  of  the  government. 
I  then  told  him  that  he  must  be  mistaken  in  the  point,  that  it  was 
the  point  above  that  had  always  been  considered  the  point  which  the 
government  would  need  for  a  fortification.  He  said  that  he  perfectly 
understood  that,  but  that  the  point  I  occupied  might  possess  advan- 
tages which  made  it  desirable  ;  that  they  had  not  yet  decided  what  to 
do,  and  in  the  meantime  he  wanted  to  ascertain  the  value  of  it.  I 
then  inquired  of  him  what  advantages  my  point  possessed  for  a  for- 
tification, and  he  said  that  vessels  coming  down  the  Sound  were 
obliged  to  come  head  on  to  my  point,  and  it  made  it  very  desirable  for  a 
fortification;  that  vessels  could  be  raked  in  passing  down,  and  that  in 
addition  to  that  it  was  a  shorter  distance  between  my  poia  t 
Schuyler  than  between  Wilkins'  Point  and  Fort  Scauyler,   and  t  at 


314  TESTIMONY. 

the  communication  wor.ld  be  easier  in  case  of  a  war,  and  conld  not  be 
cut  off,  whilst  the  communication  between  Fort  Schuyler  and  Wilkins' 
Point,  being  across  the  channel,  might  be  cut  off  by  vessels  above. 
Tliese  seemed  to  me  to  be  very  sound  reasons,  and  I  then  simjdy  re- 
peated what  I  had  said  before,  that  the  place  was  not  for  sale.  1  will 
say,  in  a  general  way,  that  my  improvements  cost  me  $50,000  ;  the 
place  was  in  a  rough  state  when  I  purchased  it. 

Question.  Did  you  fix  any  price  upon  your  land  and  improvements 
in  the  event  of  the  government  desiring  to  purchase  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir.  I  merely  handed  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  the  memo- 
randum of  the  cost  of  my  improvements. 

Question.  What  did  you  pay  for  your  property? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place  I  paid  about  $13_,000. 

Question.  For  the  106  acres? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  nine  years  ago. 

Qiiestion  What  did  you  consider  your  property  worth  in  April, 
1857,  irres])ective  of  any  desire  or  intention  on  the  part  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  become  possessed  of  it? 

Answer.  Every  one  fixes  a  sort  of  value  upon  their  own  property 
and  I  hardly  know  what  to  say.  We  are  very  apt  to  value  anything 
w^e  possess  very  highly,  but  in  answering  the  question  I  will  be  very 
honest  and  not  name  any  fancy  price.  I  would  say  that  the  place,  as  it 
stands,  was  well  worth  and  would  bring,  supposing  there  was  a  per- 
son who  had  the  means  and  needed  it  for  the  purpose,  and  I  would 
not  ask  any  price  for  it.  He  tried  several  times  to  bring  me  to  name 
a  price,  but  I  refused  and  told  him  that  all  I  could  say  was  that  if  the 
government  really  needed  it,  and  must  have  it  for  a  fortification,  that 
I  would  then  ask  a  fair  price  for  it  and  not  a  ridiculous  price,  and  I 
added  that  I  would  sell  it,  turn  my  back  upon  it,  and  never  visit  it 
again,  because  I  had  become  very  much  attached  to  it,  having  lived 
there  eight  or  nine  years,  and  had  spent  a  great  deal  of  money  on  it, 
having  improved  it  very  beautifully. 

Question.   How  many  acres  were  there  in  your  pro})erty  ? 

Answer.  There  were  106  originally,  but  I  then  had  left,  in  March^ 
1857,  seventy-two  acres. 

Question.  What  had  your  improvements  cost  you? 

Answer.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  asked  me 
to  furnish  him  with  a  memorandum  of  what  my  irn})roveraents  had 
cost  me,  and  I  went  home  and  made  out  a  list,  but  njy  memory  is  par- 
ticularly })a(l  as  to  dates  and  figures,  I  must  confess,  and  1  have  for- 
gotten it  for  wliicli  it  is  now  used,  viz  :  residence,  $100,000.  That  is 
not  saying  that  1  would  ask  that  price  or  take  it.  I  S})eak  conscien- 
tiously. 

Question.   Do  you  know  the  Wilkins'  Point  property? 

Answer.  I  have  been  there  occasionally,  but  I  am  not  well  acquainted 
witli  it. 

Question.   How  far  is  it  from  your  property? 

Answer.  As  a  mere  matter  of  guess  work,  I  sliould  say  it  was  per- 
ha])s  a  mile  distant,  or  a  little  over. 

Question.  Were  you  called  upon  in  the  months  of  March  or  April, 
1857,  to  ascertain  the  value  o(  the  Wilkins'  Point  property? 


TESTIMONY.  315 

Answer.  The  only  person  who  called  upon  me  that  I  recollect  was 
Mr.  Schell,  the  collector. 

Question.  When  was  that? 

Answer.  Subsequent  to  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  calling,  hut  I  do  not 
know  whether  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  March  or  April. 

Question.  State  what  passed  between  you? 

Answer.  He  introduced  the  thing  by  commencing  a  conversation 
with  me  about  the  place,  but  there  was  nothing  to  the  point  until  he 
inquired  what  I  supposed  the  value  of  that  property  to  be.  He  said 
that  I  knew  he  had  called  on  the  part  of  tlie  government,  and  that  he 
wanted  to  find  out  the  fair  value  of  the  property.  I  saw^  his  object, 
and  gave  him  my  opinion. 

Question.  Did  he  tell  you  that  his  object  was  to  ascertain  the  value 
of  the  property? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  told  him  that  I  could  not  very  well  fix  a  value 
upon  the  property,  as  after  all  there  was  a  great  deal  of  fancy  in  it. 
That  for  some  purposes  the  land  might  be  worth  a  very  large  price — 
that  is,  for  particular  parts  of  it — taking  out  some  of  the  back  part  of 
it,  which  was  rather  low  and  not  very  good.  I  told  him  that,  with- 
out going  into  any  particulars,  I  should  say  the  land  was  fairly  worth, 
if  wanted  for  government  pur[)Oses,  (say  one  hundred  acres,)  $700  or 
$800  an  acre. 

Question.   Did  that  include  the  improvements  upon  the  point? 

Answer.  I  cannot  recollect  that  it  did,  but  after  all  I  should  not 
think  that  the  improvements  would  be  material  in  a  valuation,  be- 
cause it  was  rather  a  poor,  cheap  house.  I  knew,  when  the  contract 
was  made  for  the  erection  of  the  house  and  the  laying  out  of  the 
grounds,  that  |7,000  was  named  as  the  sum  to  be  expended.  Perhaps 
a  little  more  was  expended,  but  I  doubt  wliether  the  improvements 
were  worth  over  from  $7,000  to  $10,000  at  the  furthest 

Question.  How  much  do  you  consider  your  land  worth  per  acre? 

Answer.  I  should  consider  my  land,  taking  one  acre  with  another, 
worth  $1,000  an  acre,  inde[)endent  of  improvements.  It  is  a  beautiful 
spot,  commands  one  of  the  finest  views  on  the  Sound,  and  has  a  fine 
gravelly  beach. 

Question.  Is  the  water  deeper  in  front  of  your  point  than  at  Wil- 
kins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  I  should  think  considerably  deeper.  It  runs  ofi* 
shoal  for  some  distance  from  Wilkins'  Point.  I  am  nearer  the  chan- 
nel ;  vessels  come  very  near  in  at  my  point. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Schell  desire  you  to  sign  or  write  a  letter  certi- 
fying to  the  value  of  this  property? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  state  what  he  had  understood  this  Wilkins'  Point 
property  to  be  worth  from  others  ? 

Answer.  Not  to  my  recollection.  He  was  only  a  short  lime  with 
me,  and  his  inquiries  seemed  to  have  reference  merely  as  to  what  I 
supposed  to  be  the  value  of  Wilkins'  Point,  which  I  gave  him. 

Question.  You  gave  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  to  understand  when  ho  called 
upon  you,  that  although  you  were  attached  to  your  place  you  would 


3  \  6  TESTIMONY. 

put  no  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  government  acquiring  it,  if  they 
needed  it,  at  a  fair  valuation  ? 

Answer.  He  said  the  government  could  take  it,  ^'  seize  it,"  I  think 
he  expressed  it,  and  then  name  appraisers  ;  hut  I  told  him  that  I 
would  not  put  them  to  that  trouble  if  they  really  wanted  the  place. 
I  felt  in  this  way,  that  I  did  not  want  to  be  used. 

Question.  Your  property  is  much  nearer  a  steamboat  landing  than 
Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.   Oh,  yes. 

Question.  And  nearer  a  settlement,  White  Stone? 

Answer.  Yes^  sir. 

Question.  And  is  it  not  considered  much  more  valuable  on  account  of 
its  accessibility  and  its  nearness  to  this  settlement  than  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  very  much  more  valuable,  because  there  is  an 
omnibus  comes  up  from  Flushing  to  my  gate.  I  do  not  wish  it  sup- 
posed tliat  I  have  spoken  of  my  property  in  high  terms  with  the  hope 
of  selling  it  ;  of  course  every  man,  if  he  has  a  house,  may  sell  if  he 
can  do  so  on  good  terms,  and  perhaps  I  may  feel  a  little  that  way,  but 
I  have  not  spoken  of  my  property  with  any  such  idea.  There  is  a 
salt  meadow  on  my  place,  of  five  acres,  that  comes  in  from  tlie  bay, 
and  if  it  was  dug  out  it  would  make  one  of  the  prettiest  docks  you 
could  find  in  the  neighborhood.  There  is  no  such  place  near  it. 
Vessels  of  moderate  draft  could  be  floated  in  it,  and  it  could  be  used 
for  landing  supplies  of  coal  or  anything. 

Question.  Do  you  know  any  other  tacts  connected  with  the  sale  of 
this  Wilkins'  Point  property  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Wissman,  who  lives  upon  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  that  that  property  was  in  the  market  for 
sale  for  several  years  before  it  was  sold  to  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  Mr.  Wissman  was  very  desirous  to  sell  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  any  price  he  fixed  upon  it  for  the  govern- 
ment to  purchase  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  ;  I  know  lie  was  a  good  deal  worried,  and 
tried  very  hard  to  sell  it,  and  had  a  plan  of  it  made  out ;  but  there 
was  some  difficulty  always  in  the  way.  He  did  sell  a  poition  of  it  to 
Mr.  Day,  as  you  are  no  doubt  aware. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Wood. 

Question.  What  is  the  distance  from  your  place  across  to  Wilkins' 
Point  ? 

Answer.  Probably  a  mile  or  a  little  over,  across  the  bay. 

Question.  Did  you  state  that  you  would  sell  your  property,  including 
improvements,  for  $100,000? 

Answer.  1  did  not;  1  consider  that  it  would  be  fairly  worth  that 
to  any  person  who  wanted  it  for  a  residence.  I  suppose  that  the  gen- 
eral expectation  would  be,  that  if  the  government  took  a  property  of 
that  kind  that  it  would  be  but  fair  for  them  to  pay  a  little  more. 


TESTIMONY,  317 

Henry  Grinnell  affirmed : 

Examined  by  Mr.  Hopkins. 

Question.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  is  your  business  or  pro- 
fession ? 

Answer  I  reside  at  New  York  ;  I  own  some  ships^  but  do  not  attend 
to  them 

Question.  You  have  been  summoned  to  tell  us,  as  for  as  you  are 
able  to  do  so,  the  value  of  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Witness.  I  believe  that  is  the  object  of  my  summons. 

Question.   Are  you  acquainted  with  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.   I  know  the  property,  but  not  particularly. 

Question.  Give  the  value  of  the  property  according  to  your  estinaate. 

Answer.  I  know  the  location  of  the  property  ;  I  have  been  along- 
side ot  it  repeatedly,  but  niver  on  it  ;  I  am  not  a  competent  witness  to 
judge  of  its  value,  because  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  highly  culti- 
vated or  not. 

Que.^tion.  You  have  some  knowledge  of  the  value  of  property  in 
that  locality,  and  can  judge  what  the  value  of  this  property  might  be 
from  the  advantages  it  possessed  for  private  residences  or  purposes  of 
that  kind. 

Answer.  It  is  a  difficult  matter  to  answer  that  question.  Property 
along  there  is  becoming  very  valuable,  and  is  increasing  ra[)idly.  I 
shoukl  suppose  that  property  couhl  have  been  sold  at  something  like 
from  $800  to  $1,000  an  acre.  That  is  my  impression  ;  and  is  a  mere 
sup{)osition. 

Question.  In  April,  1857,  what  was  it  worth? 

Answer.  I  own  some  property  about  two  miles  from  it,  but  mine  is 
a  very  desirable  spot,  being  beautifully  located  on  a  point  projecting 
into  Long  Island  Sound,  and  is  two  miles  nearer  the  city.  It  is  a 
very  desirable  spot,  i)erhaps  none  more  so.  I  have  never  offered  it 
for  sale,  but  if  offered  §30,000  for  the  ten  acres  I  might  sell. 

Question.  Is  that  a  fancy  property  and  a  fancy  price? 

Answer.  If  my  ])roperty  was  wanted  for  a  hot'  I  it  would  not  be  a 
high  price  for  it.  It  is  better  adapted  for  a  hotel  than  for  anything 
else,  being  within  one  hour's  ride  or  sail  of  New  York.  1  do  not 
know  but  that  some  of  the  other  points  in  the  neighborhood  are  just  as 
good,  but  they  are  not  so  convenient;  Wilkins'  point  may  be  just  as 
well  ada[)ted  tor  the  purpose,  but  it  is  further  from  New  York,  and 
there  is  some  difficulty  in  getting  at  it.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  fancy 
in  the  estimate  put  ui)on  pro[)erty  there  for  private  residences.  The 
value  of  the  property  depends  upon  the  elevation  of  the  land  and  the 
water  front,  the  water  front  especially  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  land  being  sold  ia  that  neighborhood? 

Answer.  I  have  known  of  some  purchased  by  a  person  whose  place 
adjoins  mine,  within  two  or  three  years,  but  it  was  very  desirable  to 
him  because  it  brought  his  back  property  down  to  the  water's  edge.  I 
think  he  paid  something  like  |3,000  an  acre,  but  it  was  only  for  a 
couple  of  acres. 

Question.  This  was  some  two  miles  nearer  New  York  than  AVilkins' 
Point? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;    it  was  adjoining  my  property.     It  was  more 


318  TESTIMONY. 

valuable  to  him  than  to  anyhod}^  else,  because  it  brought  his  rear  land 
down  to  the  water,  and  by  buying  these  two  acres  he  made  all  his 
land  a  great  deal  more  valuable.  That  was  not  a  fancy _,  but  a  business- 
like transaction.     It  made  his  other  property  much  more  valuable. 

Question.  And  you  regard  the  price  paid  as  the  intrinsic  value  of 
the  land? 

Answer.  Of  those  two  acres. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Haskin.)  To  this  person  who  owned  the  rear 
land  and  wanted  to  get  a  water  front  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir;  he  could  afford  to  pay  more  for  it  than  anybody 
else. 

Question.  Is  the  price  you  have  placed  upon  your  land  the  value  of 
the  land  itself? 

Answer  There  is  no  house  upon  it,  and  nothing  but  four  or  five 
hundred  forest  and  fruit  trees,  which  I  planted  ten  or  twelve  years 
ago.  The  property  is  so  arranged  that  a  house  can  be  placed  there  at 
any  moment. 

Examined  by  the  Chairman  : 

Question.  Would  it  not  materially  change  the  value  per  acre  to  take 
a  tract  of  110  acres  and  value  it  as  a  whole? 

Answer.  In  giving  my  impression  as  to  the  value  of  Wilkins'  Point 
per  acre,  I  gave  the  average  value  of  the  whole  tract.  I  suppose  that, 
if  it  was  valued  in  parts,  one-half  would  bring  double  what  the  other 
part  would  bring. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Schell,  the  present  collector  of  New  York,  call 
upon  you  to  get  your  estimate  of  the  value  of  this  property  ? 

Answer.  He  did. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  the  time? 

Answer.  I  cannot  recollect.     Within  a  year,  I  think. 

Question.  What  did  you  inform  him  was  your  judgment  as  to  its 
value  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  gave  him  my  opinion  as  to  the  value. 

Question.  Did  you  tell  him  you  were  not  prepared  to  give  an 
opinion  ? 

Answer.  1  think  I  told  him  something  of  the  kind.  I  think  I  told 
him  what  1  have  told  you_,  that  I  was  not  a  competent  judge  of  its 
value  ? 

Question.  Did  he  request  you  to  write  a  letter  ? 

Answer.  He  desired  me  to  embody  my  views  upon  the  subject  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  him,  and  I  think  I  addressed  him  a  letter. 

(,)uestion.  You  do  not  remember  having  stated  to  him  what  you 
considered  this  Wilkins'  Point  worth  per  acre? 

Answer.  I  do  not  tliink  1  did. 

Question.  (Letter  shown  witness.)  Is  that  a  copy  of  the  letter  you 
addressed  him? 

Answer.   1  take  it  that  is  a  C()[)y  of  the  letter. 

Tiie  following  is  the  letter  : 


TESTIMONY.  3  1  9 


New  York,  April  24,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  have  deferred  replying  to  your  inquiries  as  to  the  value  of 
land  at  Wilkins'  Point  and  the  neighborhood,  expecting  to  see  some 
persons  who  were  more  competent  than  myself  to  obtain  their  opinion. 
I  have  not  been  so  fortunate  to  meet  those  persons. 

I  can  say,  as  a  general  thing,  that  all  the  land  on  Long  Island  from 
Hell  Gate  to  Sand's  Point  is  much  sought  after,  and  very  difficult  to 
be  purchased.  I  own  about  ten  acres  on  White  Stone  Point,  which  I 
value  at  $30,000  ;  whether  it  would  bring  that  sum  I  cannot  say.  I 
do  not  think  that  my  evidence  should  have  much  weight. 

I  regret  that  I  cannot  give  you  such  information  as  would  be  more 
satisfactory. 

With  great  regard,  I  am  your  friend, 

HENKY   GKINNELL. 

Augustus  Schell,  Esq.,  New  York. 

Question.  What  you  stated  in  that  letter  that  you  did  not  think 
that  your  evidence  shouhl  have  much  weight,  you  repeat  here  now? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  not  your  property  more  accessible  than  this  at  Wil- 
kins' Point?  Is  there  not  a  steamboat  landing  near  it? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  within  one-third  of  a  mile. 

Question.  Are  you  not  very  near  the  settlement  at  White  Stone? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  the  village  is  about  three-quarters  of  a  mile  off, 
and  there  are  principally  country  seats  between  me  and  the  village. 

Question.  Did  you  state  anything  else  to  Mr.  Schell  besides  what 
you  stated  in  your  letter  and  have  stated  here? 

Answer.  I  think  not. 

Question.  He  called  on  you  at  your  office? 

Answer,  He  called  twice  ;  the  first  time  I  was  not  in,  the  second  he 
saw  me  ;  I  asked  liim  by  what  authority  he  called  on  me  to  ask  ques- 
tions, and  he  told  me  that  he  was  directed  to  make  the  inquiries  by 
the  government,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  value  of  the  property  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  that  he  did  not  know  but  what  my  point  would  be 
needed. 

James  B.  Sheridan,  stenographer  of  the  committee,  sworn  : 
Examined  by  the  Chairman. 

Question.  State  to  the  committee  whether  you  ascertained  when 
Prosper  M.  Wetmore,  Richard  Schell,  John  C.  Mather,  Mr  Latham, 
Wm.  C.  Wetmore,  and  George  Irving,  were  in  Washington  during 
the  months  of  March,  April,  May,  June,  and  July,  1857  ? 

Answer.  I  did  ;  I  called  at  Willards'  Hotel  some  days  ago,  and, 
with  Mr.  Willard,  examined  the  cash  book  for  those  months,  and  also 
the  register  of  arrivals.  I  found  the  following  entries  on  the  register 
of  arrivals  : 

March  22,  1857  :  Richard  Schell,  New  York. 

Saturday,  April  4,  1857  :  John  C.  Mather,  New  York ;  Prosper 
M.  Wetmore,  New  York  ;  Richard  Schell,  New  York. 


320  TESTIMONY. 

April  23,  1857  :   Mr.  Latham,  New  York. 

Saturday,  April  25,  1857  :   John  C.  Mather,  New  York. 

Saturday,  May  9,  1857:   John  C.  Mather,  New  York. 

May  22^  1857  :   Richard  Schell,  New  York  ;  John  C.  Mather. 

June  26,  1857  :   Auojustus  Schell. 

Sunday,  June  28,  1857  :   Richard  Schell. 

July  1,  1857:   P.  J.   Joachimsen. 

July  5,  T857:  W.  C.  Wetmore,  New  York;  John  C.  Mather, 
New  York;  (entered  in  Mather's  handwriting.) 

Monday,  July  6,  1857  :   George  Irving,  New  York. 

Mr.  Willard  went  over  his  cash  hook  with  me,  and  it  appeared  that 
Richard  Schell  left  on  the  evening  of  the  22d  of  March  ;  that  John  C. 
Mather  left  on  the  13th  of  April  ;  that  John  C.  Mather,  who  arrived 
here  again  on  the  25th  of  April,  left  on  the  28th  ;  that  John  C. 
Mather,  who  arrived  here  on  the  9th  of  May,  lefn  on  the  15th  ;  that 
Richard  Schell  left  on  the  24th  of  May  ;  that  Prosper  M.  Wetmore 
left  on  the  5th  of  June  ;  that  Richai  d  and  Augustus  Schell  left  on  the 
28th  of  June  ;  that  P.  J.  Joachimsen  left  on  the  3d  of  July,  and  that 
Wetmore  &  Co.,  viz:  Wm.  C.  W^etmore,  John  C.  Mather,  and 
George  Irving,  left  on  tlie  8th  of  July.  Mr.  Willard  informed  me 
that  Mr.  Latham,  when  he  arrived  in  town,  was  in  the  habit  of 
stopping  in  and  registering  his  name  on  their  books,  but  that  he 
never  stopped  with  them,  and,  therefore,  he  could  not  ascertain  when 
he  left  town. 

The  Chairman  stated  that  he  had  examined  Willards'  Hotel  regis- 
ter for  these  months,  and  that  the  entry  of  the  names  of  Wm.  C. 
Wetmore  and  John  C.  Mather,  on  the  5th  of  July,  1857,  was  in  the 
handwriting  of  John  C.  Mather. 

The  following  affidavit  of  William  S.  Alley  was  ordered  to  be 
appended  to  the  testimony. 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

City  and  County  of  New  York.  \ 

William  S.  Alley,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  being  duly  sworn,  sajs  : 
That  in  or  about  the  month  of  March,  1857,  he  met  in  the  city  of  New 
York  Frederick  Wissman,  who  offered  to  sell  deponent  land  for  a 
country  residence  on  Willett's  Point,  on  Long  Island,  New  York  ; 
that,  after  some  netjotiation,  deponent,  at  the  same  interview,  con- 
tracte  >  with  said  Wissman  to  purchase,  and  he  agreed  with  deponent 
to  sell  him,  twenty  acres  of  land,  parcel  of  about  two  hundred  acres 
on  said  Willett's  Point,  at  and  lor  the  price  of  five  hundred  dollars 
per  acre.  Deponent  to  have  the  privilege  of  selecting  and  locating 
said  twenty  acres  from  and  on  any  part  of  said  two  hundred  acref^, 
except  one  parcel  of  about  fifteen  acres  upon  which  buildings  had  been 
erected,  which  was  reserved.  Said  Wissman  then  exhibiti^d  to  (le[)0- 
nent  wliat  was  rei)resented  to  be  a  ma})  of  the  said  two  hundred  acres 
of  land  or  thereal)outs,  laid  out  into  lots  or  parcels  of  different  sizes  ; 
and  deponent  and  Wissman  then  made  and  exchanged  said  notes  or 
contracts  expressing  the  terms  of  their  agreement.  That,  np  to  the 
time  of  said  interview,  deponent  had  never  been  u[)()n  orexamiu'Ml  the 
said  premises.     That,  soon  after   making  said  agreement  with  Wiss- 


TESTIMONY.  321 

man,  deponent  went  upon  and  examined  the  said  premises,  and  then 
saw  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  parcel  upon  which  the  said  build- 
ings were  erected,  the  whole  of  said  premises  was  uncultivated  and 
unimproved,  and  not  such  premises  as  deponent  desired  to  purcliase 
for  the  purpose  of  improvement  and  residence.  That,  within  a  short 
time  (say  about  two  weeks)  after  the  making  of  said  ao^reement,  de- 
ponent again  met  said  Wissman  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  he 
(Wissman)  then  stated  to  deponent  that  he  had  an  opportunity  to 
dispose  of  the  whole  of  said  parcel  of  two  hundred  acres  together, 
and  he  would  be  glad  if  deponent  would  surrender  or  cancel  his  said 
contract.  And  thereupon  deponent  and  said  Wissman  (without  con- 
sideration to  either)  each  surrendered  to  the  other  and  cancelled  the 
said  sale,  notes,  or  contracts,  which  had  been  made  between  them  as 
above  mentioned  ;  and  that  very  soon  afterwards  (say  within  a  week) 
deponent  was  told  by  a  third  party  that  Wissman  had  sold  said  par- 
cel of  two  hundred  acres  to  the  general  government  at  a  great  price, 
and  that  deponent  might  have  made  a  large  sum  of  money  (say  §25,000) 
by  holding  on  to  his  said  purchase. 

WM    S.  ALLEY. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  before  me,  this  20th  May,  1858. 

A.  D.  W.  BALDWIN, 
Notary  Fuhlic,  38  Wall  street,  New  York. 

Saturday,  May  29,  1858. 

H.  G.  Wright  recalled. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Florence. 

Question.  Who  made  the  purchase  of  the  addition  to  Fort  Tomp- 
kins, Staten  Lsland  ? 

Answer.  It  was  purchased  on  an  appropriation  made  for  the  purj^ose. 

Question.   By  whom  was  it  purchased  ? 

Answer.  By  the  engineer  department. 

Question.   Of  whom  was  it  purchased  ? 

Answer.  Of  a  Mr.  Aspinwall,  William  H.,  I  think. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  when  the  purchase  was  made  ? 

Answer.  It  was  made  some  time  during  the  last  summer  ;  I  do  not 
recollect  the  precise  date,  but  I  think  it  was  in  August. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  amount  of  the  appropriation  made  for 
that  purpose  ? 

Answer.  It  was  sufficiently  large  to  pay  the  price  agreed  upon. 

Question.  Was  not  the  appropriation  §42,300,  and  the  price  paid 
§42,500? 

Answer.  I  can  explain  my  understanding  of  that,  if  the  committee 
desire  it. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  explanation. 

Witness.  Some  years  ago   Mr.  Aspinwall  was  applied   to  for  the 

price  at  which  he  would  sell  this  additional  tract  of  land.     The  officer 

in  charge  in  the  vicinity  had  some   negotiation   with    him,   and  the 

price  was  fixed,  as  I  have  understood,  from  examining  the  papers,  at 

H.  Rep.  Com.  549 21 


322  TESTIMONY. 

|2,500,  which  would  make  the  price  of  the  whole  tract,  computed  at 
that  rate,  $42,300.     This,  it  must  be  recollected,  was  some  years  ago. 

Question.  How  many? 

Answer,  I  think,  five  or  six.  Application  was  made  to  Congress 
to  purchase  this  land  for  $42,300  ;  but  it  failed,  and,  according  to  my 
recollection,  it  was  made  more  than  once  before  the  appropriation  was 
obtained.  In  the  last  appropriation  bill  there  was  a  special  appro- 
priation of  $42,309  for  the  purpose. 

Question.  How  many  acres  were  in  this  tract? 

Answer.  About  17^,  and,  according  to  our  computation^  the  price  for 
the  whole  was  $42,300.  I  was  not  in  the  office  at  the  time,  and  I 
have  gathered  this  from  the  papers. 

Question,  Where  is  Fort  Tompkins  ? 

Answer.  It  is  on  the  Narrows.  It  is  the  fort  that  stands  on  the 
highest  ground  there,  immediately  behind  Fort  Richmond. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  value  of  the  surrounding 
property  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not^  except  from  the  statements  of  Major  Delafield. 
who  at  the  time  gave  the  different  sites,  and  the  price  that  had  been 
paid  for  them  ;  and  it  was  on  that  statement  this  offer  was  made,  for 
there  had  been  no  agreement  to  purchase,  any  more  than  that  an  ap- 
propriation had  been  asked  from  Congress  for  the  purpose. 

Question.   How  far  is  Fort  Tompkins  from  New  York  ? 

Answer.  About  four  miles. 

Question.  Is  it  not  more  than  that? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  it  is  immediately  opposite  Fort  Hamilton. 

Question.  When  was  this  purchase  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  money  was  paid  in  August. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  This  purchase  was  made  with  the  full 
knowledge  of  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  by  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 

Answer.  I  so  understood  it. 

Question.  Were  you  the  engineer  in  charge  here  on  the  30th  and 
31st  of  March,  1857? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  could  hardly  say  I  was. 

Question.  You  received  a  telegraphic  despatch  on  the  30th  of  March. 
1857,  from  Major  Barnard,  addressed  to  you  in  cliarge,  asking 
authority  to  purchase  this  proi)erty  at  W^ilkins'  Point  for  $100,000? 

Answer.   It  was  to  offer  $100,000  for  the  property. 

Question.  Upon  the  receipt  of  that  despatch,  what  did  you  do? 

Answer.  I  took  the  telegraphic  despatch  and  a  letter  from  Major 
Barnard  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  received  his  orders,  which  I  tele- 
graphed back  to  Major  Barnard. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  what  the  orders  of  the  Secretary  were  at 
that  time? 

Answer.  I  presented  tlie  letter  to  him  as  a  matter  that  called  for  his 
consideration,  and  he  desired  me  to  read  it.  I  read  the  communica- 
tion. He  then  asked  me  what  the  opinion  of  General  Totten  was  in 
relation  to  the  proposition,  and  I  told  him  that  the  General  considered 
the  price  too  much,  and  that  he  was  not  willing  to  recommend  that 
so  much  should  be  paid  ;  tliat  if  it  became  necessary  to  buy  it,  that  it 
should  only  be  taken  upon  the  award  of  a  jury,     lie  approved  this 


TESTIMONY.  323 

omnion,  and  adhered  to  former  instructions,  whicli  were,  that  Major 
Barnard  should  proceed  to  Albany  and  procure  an  act  of  condemna- 
tion.    I  telefjraphed  the  Secretary's  orders  to  Major  Barnard. 

Question.  How  many  acres  are  there  in  this  Wilkins'  Point  pro- 
perty that  the  government  have  possession  of? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know,  certain. 

Question.   About  how  many  ? 

Answer.  I  had  a  calculation  made  after  your  application  to  Colonel 
Smith,  by  one  of  our  draughtsmen,  on  the  plat  sent  by  the  Colonel. 
I  cannot  vouch  for  its  correctness,  but  he  makes  it  lOlyV  acres  to  high 
water  mark. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Wood  : 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  value  of  property  around 
Fort  Tompkins? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  am  not.  All  I  know  is  what  I  have  seen  in 
the  report  of  Major  Delafield,  who  made  the  first  treaty  for  the  land. 
He  stated  the  value  of  tracts  in  the  vicinity,  or  the  prices  at  which 
they  had  been  held  and  sold.  They  all  exceeded,  I  believe,  consider- 
ably what  was  asked  for  the  tract  purchased. 

Question.  What  was  the  character  of  the  sites  around  there? 
Were  they  villa  sites  ? 

Answer.  There  are  country  seats  all  along  there. 

Question.  Is  the  country  densely  or  sparsely  settled  in  that  neigh- 
borhood ? 

Answer.  Sparsely  settled. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Are  there  not  beautiful  country  seats 
fronting  on  the  bay  there  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir.  I  know  nothing  of  the  particular  value  of  this 
tract  or  any  of  the  others. 

Question.  How  many  years  ago  was  that  report  made  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think,  five  or  six  years  ago. 

I  wish  to  finish  the  narrative  I  began,  explaining  how  the  price 
paid  for  this  purchase  happened  to  exceed  the  appropriation.  I  have 
stated  that  the  price  asked  per  acre  was  $2,500,  and  that  the  computed 
value  of  the  whole  was  |42,300.  I  was  not  in  the  office  at  the  time, 
and  I  gathered  these  facts  from  the  records.  After  the  failure  of  the 
first  application  to  Congress,  Mr.  Aspinwall  thought  that  lie  ought  to 
be  allowed  interest  upon  the  price  asked,  but  this  was  refused.  He 
still  adhered  to  his  price,  and  said,  as  I  have  gathered  from  conversa- 
tions, that  he  did  not  wish  his  view  in  front  to  be  restricted,  and  that 
was  the  reason  why  he  would  still  allow  the  government  to  take  it  at 
that  price.  He  left  for  Europe  before  the  passage  of  the  bill  making 
the  appropriation  for  the  purchase,  or  before  the  1st  of  July,  when  the 
money  was  to  be  paid,  and  left  a  deed  to  be  given  to  the  United  States 
on  the  receipt  of  the  money,  in  which  the  consideration  was  842,500. 
Whether  this  was  intentional  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Aspinwall,  or  whether 
that  sum  was  put  in  the  deed  by  mistake,  I  do  not  know  ;  but  in  order 
to  get  the  land  and  go  on  with  the  work,  and  in  consideration  of  his 
having  waited,  &c.,  it  was  thought  better  by  General  Totten  to  pay 
the  aaditional  ."^200  required  by  the  deed.    It  was  done  without  much 


324  tj:stimony. 

consideratioiij  and  the  money  paid  over  and  the  deed  received.  Finally, 
there  was  some  question  whether  it  was  legal  or  not. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Since  your  connexion  with  the  engi- 
neer bureau,  have  you  ever  known  an  appropriation  for  the  purchase 
of  a  site  to  be  exceeded  §50,000? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  aoy  absolute  purchase,  except  one  during 
the  last  summer  or  fall  at  New  Bedford. 

Question.  There  is  a  mortgage  of  $85,000  upon  the  Wilkins'  Point 
property? 

Answer.  There  is. 

Question.  How  much  interest  has  been  paid  on  it? 

Answer.  There  have  been  two  instalments,  or  one  year's  interest, 
paid.  I  do  not  know  the  sum  paid  in  gross^  but  each  payment  was 
$2,975. 

Hon.  John  A.  Searing,  sworn  : 

Examined  by  Mr.  Florence. 

Question.  You  represent  the  district  in  which  this  Wilkins'  Point 
property  is  located  ? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question.  Are  you  acquainted  with  it  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  a  very  intimate  acquaintance  with  it.  I  know 
where  it  is  located. 

Question.  Have  you  any  means  of  estimating  what  the  property 
would  be  worth  if  purchased  by  the  government,  or  do  you  know  what 
it  is  worth  ? 

Answer.  No,  I  could  not  say  exactly.  I  know  land  is  very  high  in 
that  immediate  neighborhood. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  Do  you  know  the  price  at  which  it  is 
held  in  that  neighborhood  ? 

Answer.  There  are  all  kinds  of  prices,  from  |500  to  $3,000  an  acre, 
placed  on  the  property  within  halt  a  mile  around  there^  about  College, 
College  Point,  and  Strattonport,  and  all  those  new  settlements.  This 
property  is  beautifully  located,  and  has  the  handsomest  water  front  of 
any  property  along  there. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  that  property  was  worth  (say  110 
acres)  on  the  28th  of  April,  1857? 

Answer.  The  land  would  vary  ;  the  front  land  on  the  water  would 
be  worth  more  than  $2,000^  and  tlie  other  would  not  be  worth  much. 

Question.  Give  us  the  average  value  of  the  whole  i)roperty  ? 

Answer.  I  have  never  been  over  the  whole  property. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  The  property  has  a  great  deal  of  water 
front? 

Answer.  I  know  it.  I  have  been  on  the  ground  ;  have  sailed  around 
there. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Is  there  much  depth  of  water  in  front 
of  the  property  ? 

Answer.  In  the  channel  there  is  depth  of  water. 

Question.  Is  not  the  cliannel  on  the  other  side  pretty  near  Fort 
Schuyler  ? 


TESTIMONY.  325 

Answer.  It  is.  I  should  say  that  there  are  only  two  points  which 
could  he  made  availahle  for  fortification  purposes,  and  they  are  Cry- 
der's  Point  and  this  Wilkins'  Point.  Cryder's  Point  adjoins  Wilkins' 
Point,  I  helieve. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  heen  on  the  Cryder's  Point  property? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  think  it  worth  as  much  as  this  Wilkins'  Point, 
or  as  desirahle  a  property  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  it  is. 

Question.  Is  it  not  more  highly  cultivated? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  it  is  so  handsomely  situated  ;  the  improve- 
ment in  the  soil  amounts  to  nothing.  I  know  of  land  at  G-reat  Neck, 
a  good  way  up  the  bay,  which  was  sold  recently  at  $1,500  an  acre, 
and  some  parts  of  it  had  not  heen  ploughed  for  twenty  years.  A  man 
who  wants  to  buy  a  property  for  a  residence  does  not  look  at  the 
cultivation  of  it,  but  the  location. 

Question.  Has  not  Cryder's  Point  a  very  fine  house  and  fine  out- 
houses upon  it? 

Answer.  The  out-houses  would  be  of  very  little  value  to  the  gov- 
ernment. 

Question.  Take  the  whole  of  this  land  at  Wilkins'  Point  together — 
front,  back,  and  side  land — what  do  you  estimate  the  110  acres 
worth  ? 

Answer.  From  the  way  property  has  been  selling  in  that  neighbor- 
hood, I  should  say  it  was  worth  very  near  §2,000  an  acre. 

Question.  Please  state  to  the  committee  what  property  has  been 
sold  in  that  neighborhood  for  that  price  ? 

Answer.  At  rStrattonport  I  understand  that  Mr.  Frings  sold  land 
for  .$3,000  an  acre. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.   Where  is  Strattonport? 

Answer.  It  is  some  two  miles  distant. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Did  you  get  your  information  in  rela- 
tion to  Mr.  Frings'  sale  from  himself? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  him.  I  heard  it,  or  saw  it  in  the  prints  of 
land  being  sold  at  this  enormous  price  by  this  man,  who  is  a 
speculator. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  Has  not  the  impression  been  current  in 
that  neighborhood  for  some  time  that  Wilkins'  Point  would  be 
purchased  by  the  government  for  a  fortification  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Would  not  the  knowledge  of  an  act  having  passed  Congress 
to  purchase  a  site  there  for  a  fortification  tend  considerably  to  increase 
the  value  of  the  place  ? 

Answer.  Most  decidedly  it  would.  It  was  well  known  that  men 
would  seek  to  purchase  this  property  to  hold  it  for  sale  to  the  govern- 
ment. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Do  you  know  who  got  hold  of  the 
land  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   You  do  not  know  the  parties  interested? 

Answer.  I  never  did. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  owns  the  land  adjoining  this  place? 


S26  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  Ko,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  at  what  price  it  is  held? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  land  sold  in  that  neighborhood  for 
over  $1,000  an  acre  ? 

Answer.  I  have  been  informed  that,  at  Great  Neck,  the  son  of  Hon. 
John  A.  King,  the  governor  of  the  State,  bought  ten  acres  in  the  town 
in  which  I  li\^e  for  $10,000.     That  is  twenty  miles  from  New  York. 

Question.  In  April,  1857,  what  would  you  have  been  willing  to 
have  given  for  110  acres  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  It  would  depend  altogether  upon  a  man's  fancy  ;  I  would 
not  give  any  such  price  for  it  as  a  farm. 

Question.  What  would  you  have  been  willing  to  have  paid  for  it  in 
April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  that  that  is  a  fair  question.  Every  man 
cannot  undertake  to  buy  a  $200,000  place. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  All  the  questions  which  have  been  put 
to  you  have  been  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  your  opinion  ;  and  I 
now  ask  you,  as  a  matter  of  opinion,  what  you  would  have  been  willing 
to  have  paid  for  that  property  in  April,  1857,  if  you  desired  to  pur- 
chase it? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  that  is  any  question  at  all  ;  because,  if  I 
was  a  wealthy  man,  and  wanted  to  buy  this  property,  the  location 
suiting  mCj  and  all  that,  I  would  have  been  w^illing  to  have  paid  any 
price  lor  it. 

Question.  If  you  were  a  man  of  means,  and  desired  to  buy  the 
property,  what  would  you  have  paid  for  it? 

Answer.  If  I  took  a  fancy  to  the  property,  I  would  have  been  will- 
ing to  have  paid  almost  any  price  for  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  Would  you  have  given  $2,000  an  acre 
for  it? 

Answer.  Very  likely  ;  probably  more. 

Question  by  the  Chairman.  Would  you  have  given  $2,000  an  acre 
for  it,  if  you  could  have  got  it  for  $500? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  You  would  have  given  just  what  you  could  have  got  it 
for  at  that  time? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  If  you  had  been  the  owner  of  the  property,  and  knew 
that  an  act  had  })assed  for  the  purchase  of  it,  what  would  you  have 
expected  to  get  from  the  government? 

Answer.  A  pretty  large  sum.     I  would  have  got  more  than   they 

d,  if  I  could  have  possibly  done  it. 

Question.   Would  you  have  got  more  than  $250,000? 

Answer.   I  would  have  got  all  I  could. 

Question.  Witli  a  knowledge;  that  the  approj)riation  for  the  purpose 
was  $150,000,  would  you  have  expected  to  be  paid  $200,000  for  it? 

Answer.  If  I  thought  the  government  wanted  it,  and  must  have  the 
p**operty,  and  could  not  posihly  do  without  it,  if  I  had  only  paid  $15  for 
it,  1  would  have  asked  $250,(00,  or  as  much  more  as  I  could  have  got. 
I  would  tfike  advantage  of  the  government's  necessities  just  as  I  would 
the  necessities  of  a  private  individual  in  a  business  transaction. 


TESTIMONY.  327 


Thursday,  May  27,  1858. 

Edward  A.  Lawrence,  affirmed : 

Examioed  by  Mr.  Hopkins. 

Question.  What  is  your  business,  and  wliere  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  I  am  a  farmer,  living  at  Flushing,  Queens  county. 

Question.  How  far  from  Wilkins'  or  Willett's  Point? 

Answer.  About  three-quarters  of  a  mile  in  a  direct  line. 

Question.  Give  us  any  information  you  can  impart  as  to  the  value 
of  this  property,  and  property  in  the  neighborhood,  similarly  located, 
in  the  month  of  April,  1857? 

Answer.  Probably  it  was  a  good  deal  bigher  then  than  it  is  now, 
and  would  sell  a  great  deal  better.  The  locality  is  surrounded  with 
country  seats,  and  there  are  about  as  many  people  who  have  their 
country  residences  in  that  vicinity  as  there  are  farmers.  My  brother, 
who  owns  a  place  next  to  me^  sold  off  some  twenty-five  or  thirty 
acres,  in  the  year  this  property  was  sold,  fronting  on  Little  Neck  bay 
at  high  water_,  but  at  low  water  having  a  mud  flat^  for  §600  an  acre. 
The  land  had  a  front  on  the  bay  of  some  300  or  400  feet. 

Question.  How  much  do  you  consider  this  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point  worth? 

Answer.  From  $1,500  to  $2,000  ;  because  why,  it  is  located  so  ele- 
gantly. Wissman  laid  it  out  in  building  lots,  and  sold  a  lot  to  Mr. 
Turner  at  the  rate  of  §3,000  an  acre.  I  think  its  locality  and  position 
makes  it  a  great  deal  more  valuable.  It  is  rather  abrupt  on  the 
Sound,  but  rises  beautifully  and  in  a  mound. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  Do  you  put  that  valuation  of  §1,500  or 
§2,000  upon  the  property  for  villa  sites? 

Answer.  To  lay  it  out  in  five  or  three  acre  lots,  you  can  get  a 
from  or  water  view  anywhere  on  the  property,  except  a  little  place  to 
the  south,  and  the  location  is  beautifully  adapted  for  villa  sites. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  sales  of  land 
in  that  neighborhood  about  that  time? 

Answer.  I  know  that  Mr.  Frings  bought  some  land  about  that  time 
from  the  widow  Van  Whyt,  and  I  think  he  paid  §1,250  an  acre. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Wood.)  Is  there  any  sight  in  the  neighborhood 
so  well  adapted  for  a  fortification  as  this  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  there  is  none  within  twenty  miles  of  it. 

Question.  Was  not  Cryder's  Point  talked  of  as  being  a  place  which 
the  government  might  select? 

Answer.  There  was  some  talk  of  Cryder's  Point ;  but  any  child  could 
see,  by  looking  at  the  map,  and  comparing  Cryder's  Point  with  Wil- 
kins' Point,  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  talk  of  Cryder's  Point  as  a  site 
for  a  fortification,  when  Wilkins'  Point  could  be  procured. 

Question.  Is  there  not  a  place  called  Stepping  Stone  which  wouLl 
answer  for  a  site  for  a  fortification  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  not  ;  not  at  all  ;  because  it  is  a  flat  coun- 
try, and  it  is  not  at  all  situated  like  Wilkins'  Point,  projecting  out 
into  the  Sound. 


328  TESTIMONY. 


Examined  by  the  Chairman. 

Question.  Was  there  not  a  fort  at  Cryder's  Point  during  the  revolu- 
tionary war  ? 

ADSwer.  I  guess  not ;  not  to  my  knowledge.  I  know  that  property, 
every  inch  of  it.     Tbere  might  have  been,  but  I  never  heard  of  it. 

Question.  Are  you  the  son-in-law  of  Andrew  H.  Mickle? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Does  Mr.  Mickle's  place  lie  nearer  to  Wilkins'  Point 
than  yours  ? 

Answer.   Our  farms  adjoin. 

Question.  Is  not  his  farm  nearer  Wilkins'  Point  than  yours? 

Answer.  It  is  one  hundred  yards  nearer. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Wissman? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know^  that  he  had  this  Wilkins'  Point  prop- 
erty in  the  market  for  sale  for  several  years  in  villa  plats? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  he  never  informed  me  of  it ;  and  I  never  saw  any 
map  of  it. 

Question.  Did  you  never  know  that  he  had  it  in  the  market  for  sale? 

Answer.  I  knew  the  Point  was  for  sale,  but  I  did  not  know  that  it 
was  for  sale  in  villa  plats.  I  do  not  know  what  he  paid  for  the  prop- 
erty, or  at  what  price  he  held  it.     I  never  talked  about  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  part  of  the  property  that  Mr.  Day  pur- 
chased ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  where  it  lies. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  Day  paid  for  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  knew  there  was  a  purchase  of  that  kind. 

Question.  Do  you  know  that  Wissman  offered  to  sell  the  whole 
tract  in  July,  1856,  for  $65,000? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  this  is  the  first  I  have  heard  of  it. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  understand  at  what  price  that  property  was 
held,  in  whole  or  in  plats? 

Answer.  I  never  had  the  first  intimation  of  it  in  any  way,  and  sup- 
pose the  reason  I  had  not  was  because  I  am  a  farmer  and  stay  at  home. 

Question,  flow  do  you  arrive  at  your  conclusion  that  this  whole 
property  is  worth  $1,500  an  acre? 

Answer.  From  the  price  at  which  other  property  in  the  neighbor- 
hood not  so  desirably  located  has  sold  at.  I  have  been  offered  |600  an 
acre  for  my  farm,  and  there  is  my  brother's  property. 

Question.   Is  not  your  farm  in  a  better  state  of  cultivation  ? 

Answer.  I  ])resume  it  is,  for  Wilkins'  Point  has  not  been  cultivated 
for  years.     It  has  been  used  for  pasture. 

Question.  Has  not  your  father-in-law  purchased  some  land  in  that 
vicinity  within  the  last  two  or  three  years? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  purchased  some  12  acres,  and  paid  $5,095 
for  the  whole.  It  was  sohl  in  two  portions,  and  he  paid  $1,250  an 
acre  ibr  the  portion  fronting  on  the  bay. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  property  sold  in  the  neighbor- 
hood ? 


TESTIMONY.  329 

Answer.  I  would  mention  the  purchases  and  sales  by  Mr.  Frings. 
There  are  no  others  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Would  you  have  been  willing  to  give  $1^000  an  acre  for 
this  whole  tract  at  Wilkins'  Point,  in  April,  1857  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  I  would  have  paid  it  in  a  moment  ? 

Question.  Without  having  any  expectation  of  selling  it  to  tlie  gov- 
ernment ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  because  it  has  been  talked  of  for  a  number  of 
years.  Even  when  Charles  Willett  owned  the  Point  he  valued  it  at 
§50,000  or  $60,000. 

Question.  Would  you  have  given  $1,000  an  acre  without  having 
any  expectation  that  you  could  sell  it  to  the  government,  supposing 
you  bought  it  for  farming  purposes  ? 

.  j^nswer.  I  think  I  would  have  given  $1,000  an  acre.  I  would  not 
have  been  willing  to  have  given  more.  If  I  knew  or  thought  that 
the  government  would  have  wanted  it,  I  would  have  given  it  in  a  mo- 
ment. I  did  not  see  the  appropriation  ;  if  I  had^  I  think  I  should 
have  bought  it. 

Question.  There  is  a  mortgage  on  the  property  for  $85,000  ;  sup- 
pose that  mortgage  was  foreclosed  and  the  property  sold  under  it, 
how  much,  in  your  judgment,  would  it  bring? 

Answer  I  do  not  know.  If  it  was  sold,  I  should  think  it  would 
bring  $1,500  an  acre.  I  guess  there  are  men  enough  who  would  buy 
it  for  that.  I  do  so  because  I  have  heard  from  my  friend,  Mr.  Hover, 
that  there  were  seven  acres  of  land  swampy,  and  not  cleared  off  at 
all,  but  full  of  briars  and  stumps,  at  White  Stone_,  which  were  sold  for 
$2,000,  with  a  house  on  it,  and  that  during  these  hard  times. 

Question.  Is  it  not  thickly  settled  at  White  Stone  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Is  it  thickly  settled  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  because  there  are  no  settlements  around  it. 

Question.  Are  there  any  improvements  about  there? 

Answer.  There  are  two  of  the  finest  houses  just  erected  near  it. 
Old  Samuel  Willetts  bought  some  land  there  last  year  and  put  up 
two  of  as  fine  houses  as  you  would  wish  to  see,  for  himself  and  son. 

Question.  Did  John  C.  Mather  converse  with  you  on  the  subject  of 
the  value  of  this  property,  last  winter,  at  Albany  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  but  what  he  may  have  asked  me,  last  win- 
ter, what  T  thought  the  property  was  worth.  I  think  he  did.  I  am 
certain  that  either  he  or  Richard  Schell  did. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  ? 

Answer.  Very  well,  indeed. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  converse  with  you  on  the  subject  ? 

Answer.  He  or  no  other  living  soul,  except  one  or  the  other  of 
those  two  gentlemen  ;  but  I  cannot  name  which. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  Augustus  Schell  ever  converse  with  you  upon 
the  subject  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  and  no  other  man,  except  one  of  the  two  gentle- 
men I  have  named. 

Question.  How  much  do  you  hold  your  land  at  per  acre  ? 

Answer.  I  would  not  sell  it  for  any  money. 


330  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  You  were  offered  $600  an  acre  for  it? 

Anvswer.  By  my  brother. 

Question.   Is  not  your  farm  highly  cultivated? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  What  is  the  character  of  the  improvements  on  this  Wil- 
kins'  Point  property  ? 

Answer.  A  good  house. 

Question.  In  the  deed  to  the  government  the  property  is  said  to 
contain  110  acies  ;  how  much  of  this  is  high  and  how  much  low  laud? 

Answer.  It  is  nearly  all  high  land.  There  is  a  narrow  strip  that 
is  rather  level  as  you  approach  the  property  by  the  road,  but  the  rest 
is  high,  I  think.     I  have  not  been  on  it  for  two  or  three  years. 

Question.   Do  you  know  what  this  property  is  assessed  at  ? 

Answer.  I  know  that  the  average  of  assessed  property  in  Flushing.- 
is  $225  an  acre. 

Q  lestion.  Do  you  know  what  this  place  is  assessed  at  ? 

Answer.   I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  the  rule  of  your  assessors  is  in  as- 
sessing the  value  of  property? 

Answer.  I  know  the  rule  generally  is  to  take  one  quarter  or  one- 
third,  I  do  not  know  which. 

Question,  (by  Mr  Hopkins.)  Would  not,  in  your  judgment,  the 
value  of  this  property  have  increased  after  the  passage  of  the  appro- 
priation for  the  purchase  of  a  site? 

Answer.  Why,  certainly;  immediately.  But  it  was  always  worth 
that  for  any  purpose,  because,  I  tell  you,  it  is  the  most  elegantly 
located  spot  of  land  within  thirty  miles  of  my  house.  I  have  heard 
my  father  speak  of  the  property,  and  I  have  heard  my  brothers  and 
sisters  say  that  he  visited  it  with  an  idea  of  buying  it,  because  he  said 
he  knew  that  eventually  the  government  would  have  to  purchase  it 
for  a  fort. 

Henry  H.  Hover^  sworn  :     Examined  by  Mr.  Hopkins. 

Question.  What  is  your  profession,  and  where  do  you  reside? 

Answer.  I  renide  in  the  town  of  Flushing,  and  am  in  the  auctioneer 
business,  a  collector  of  taxes,  real  estate  agent,  &c. 

Question.   Do  you  know  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.    1  am  well  acquainted  with  it. 

Question.   What  was  it  worth  in  April,  1857? 

Witness. — When  was  the  appropriation  made? 

The  Chairman. — In  March,  1857,  and  the  purchase  in  April,  1857. 

Witness. — I  should  think  it  watj  worth  $1,000  an  acre  after  the  ap- 
propriation was  made. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  land  being  sold  in  that  neighbor- 
hood about  that  time? 

Answer.  There  was  a  great  deal  of  land  sold  at  College  Point  about 
that  time. 

Question,  by  Mr.  Haskin.  Is  that  nearer  New  York? 

Answer.   About  two  miles  nearer,  propably. 

Question  by  Mr.  Hopkins.  State  the  price  at  which  it  was  sold,  and 
the  situation  of  the  jJroperty  .^ 


TESTIMONY.  331 

Answer.  It  was  sold  at  different  prices.  I  have  heard  ofproperty 
sold  there  at  1 1,250  an  acre,  some  27  or  28  acres  together. 

Question.  Any  other  sales  of  property  in  that  vicinity  about  that 
time  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  of  any  exactly  at  that  time. 

Question.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  value  of  the  property  on 
the  Fort  ISchuyler  side? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Haskin,  (chairman.) 

Question.  Are  you  at  the  present  time  the  collector  in  the  town  of 
Flushing  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   Wliat  is  this  Wilkins'  Point  property  assessed  at? 

Anbwer.  It  belongs  to  the  government,  and  is  not  taxed. 

Question.   What  was  it  assessed  at  in  1857  ? 

Answer.  It  was  not  taxed  in  1857  ;  the  whole  trac!;  was  taxed  in 
1856  at  $27,000. 

Question.  What  is  the  relative  proportion  of  low  and  high  land  in 
the  110  acres  purchased  by  the  government  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  there  are  eight  or  ten  acres  low, land. 

Question.  Do  you  know  the  part  of  this  place  purchased  by  Mr.  Day? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  bought  26  acres  and  over. 

Question.  How  does  that  compare  as  to  value  with  the  other  part 
of  the  place  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  it  was  not  worth  quite  as  much  ;  it  is  not 
so  elevated. 

Question.  Has  it  a  good  water  front  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir ;  the  tide  falls  off  a  little  more  on  the  bay,  that 
is  all. 

Question.  Do  you  kuow  Mr.  Wissman? 

Answer.  Yes^  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  that  he  had  this  property  in  the  market  for 
sale  for  years? 

Answer.  I  believe  he  only  owned  it  for  two  or  three  years. 

Question.  Did  he  have  it  in  the  market  for  sale? 

Answer.  He  advertised  it. 

Question.  From  the  time  it  was  conveyed  to  him  by  his  father-in- 
law,  John  De  Ruyter? 

Answer.    Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Did  he  map  it  in  villa  sites? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir 

Question.  How  much  did  he  hold  it  at  per  acre? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect.  I  think  something  like  §700  or  $800 
an  acre. 

Question.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  Day  paid  for  the  part  he  bought? 

Answer.  I  understood  about  §500  an  acre. 

Question.  Before  the  act  passed  making  the  appropriation,  and  say 
in  the  month  of  February,  1857,  how  much  do  you  consider  that  prop- 
erty was  worth  per  acre? 

Answer.  I  should  have  thought  it  worth  probably  from  $500  to 
$700  an  acre. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  as  soon  as  the  act  passed  making  an 


332  TESTIMONY. 

appropriation  for  the  ]3urchase  of  a  site  opposite  Fort  Sclniyler,  that 
the  Wilkins'  Point  appreciated  in  v^alue? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  should  think  so,  if  I  owned  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Cryder's  Point? 

Answer.  I  do. 

Question.  How  does  it  compare  with  Wilkins'  Point,  in  the  way  of 
buildings,  improvements,  and  land  under  cultivation  ? 

Answer.  A  portion  of  Mr.  Cryder's  property  is  in  a  high  state  of 
cultivation,  and  the  buildings  are  excellent. 

Question.  How  much  is  Cryder's  buildino'S  worth  ? 

Answer.  Probably  $10,000. 

Question.  How  much  are  the  buildings  on  the  Wilkins'  Point  prop- 
erty worth  ? 

Answer.  Not  over  $7,000  or  $8,000. 

Question.  There  is  a  mortgage  upon  the  Wilkins'  Point  property  of 
$85,000.  If  that  mortgage  had  been  foreclosed  and  the  property  sold 
in  the  month  of  February,  1857,  what,  in  your  judgement,  Avould  that 
property  have  brought  ? 

Answer.  I  should  not  suppose  that  it  would  have  brought  over  $600 
an  acre,  probably  not  that  under  a  forced  sale. 

Question.  Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Wissman  had  contracted  to  sell 
a  part  of  this  property  to  William  S.  Alley  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Question.  Or  to  either  of  the  Drapers  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Mickle's  property  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Mr.  Lawrence's? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.   What  do  you  consider  Mickle's  property  w^orth  per  acre? 

Answer.  Probably  $500  dollars  an  acre. 

Question.  What  do  you  consider  Mr.  Lawrence's  w^orth  ? 

Answer    I  should  think  $500  an  acre  would  be  a  ftiir  ])rice. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  Mickle  having  bought  a  piece  of  prop- 
erty within  the  last  year  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  far  from  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  Some  distance.  It  is  right  alongside  of  his  present  residence. 

Question.  How  many  acres? 

Answer.  I  tliink  only  about  iburteen  acres. 

Question.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  depth  of  water  in  front  and 
around  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  exactly  how  deep  the  water  is  ;  the  water 
does  not  fall  off  much. 

Question.   Are  tliere  not  flats  for  some  distance  out? 

Answer.  Not  there.  In  front  of  Mickle's  and  Lawrence's  property 
it  falls  olF  almost  bare. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  Tliis  property  you  speak  of  as  worth  $500 
an  acre,  l)elonging  to  Mr.  Lawrence  and  Mr.  Mickle,  is  only  used  for, 
and  suitable  for,  farming  ])urp(,ses? 

Answer.  It  is  used  for  that,  hut  it  is  rather  fancy  property. 


TESTIMONY.  333 

Question  by  tlie  Chaikmax.  It  is  suitable  for  villa  sites  ? 

Answer,  Yes,  sir.  It  would  not  be  worth  $500  an  acre  for  farming 
purposes. 

Question  by  Mr.  Wood.  It  would  not  be  a  suitable  site  for  a  forti- 
fication ? 

Answer.  It  lies  way  up  the  bay,  and  would  not  be  suitable  for  that 
purpose  ;  it  lies  a  mile  up  the  bay  from  Wilkins'  Point. 

Question.  Would  not  Cryder's  Point  be  suitable  for  the  fortifica- 
tion ? 

Answer.  It  is  rather  too  far  down  ;  it  is  below  Fort  Schuyler.  Wil- 
kins' Point  is  a  little  to  the  east,  but  more  immediately  opposite. 
Wilkins'  Point  is  pretty  much  directly  opposite. 

Question.  Is  it  not  a  shorter  distance  from  Crycler's  Point  to  Fort 
Schuyler  than  from  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir;  certainly  not  within  three-quarters  of  a  mile,  and 
I  think  a  mile. 

Question.  Do  you  know  Prosper  M.  Wetmore? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  George  Irving? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  had  any  conversations  with  him  about  this? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  I  ever  have.  I  have  not  seen  him  more 
than  twice  in  a  year,  I  think. 

Question.    Do  you  know  John  C.  Mather? 

Answer.  I  know  him  by  sight. 

Question.  Has  he  had  any  conversation  with  you  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  have  not  seen  him  since  hist  fall  at  the  Syra- 
cuse convention. 

Question.  What  do  you  consider  Cryder's  Point  worth  per  acre, 
including  improvements? 

Answer.  I  consider  it  worth  §S00  an  acre,  certain. 

Question.  Considering  the  extra  improvements  on  Mickle's  place 
and  Lawrence's  place,  and  the  high  state  of  cultivation  and  beauty  of 
the  land  for  villa  sites  and  country  residences,  is  not  their  property 
worth  as  much  per  acre  ior  their  purposes,  leaving  altogether  out  of 
the  question  the  idea  of  the  government  wanting  a  site  for  a  fortifica- 
tion, as  the  land  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  What  is  the  difierence  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Mickle's  land  runs  back  from  the  river  a  good  dis- 
tance, and  a  very  small  portion  of  it  is  water  front.  Wilkins'  Point 
is  almost  an  island,  and  is  w^ell  adapted  for  laying  out  villa  sites  all 
around  it,  except  the  lower  point,  where  the  water  falls  off  pretty 
much. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  a  map  of  this  place  laid  out  in  villa 
sites  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  you  ever  have  any  authority  from  him  to  sell  any 
jmrt  of  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  but  I  know  he  had  it  in  the  market.  I  believe 
some  agent  in  New  York  advertised  it. 


S34  TESTIMONY. 

Question.  Is  there  not  a  settlement  at  College  Point,  where  you 
spoke  of  land  having  been  sold  ? 

Answer.  There  is  a  settlement  within  half  a  mile  of  it. 

Question.  Connecting  with  it? 

Answer.  Not  immediately. 

Question.  Quite  a  large  settlement? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Any  manufactures  there? 

Answer.  There  is  a  gutta  percha  and  India  rubber  manufactory 
within  a  mile  of  it. 

Question.  Does  that  property  front  on  the  river? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  and  it  is  two  miles  nearer  New  York. 

Question.  Is  there  a  steamboat  landing  there? 

Answer.  There  is  one  at  White  iStone. 

Question.  How  far  from  College  Point  ? 

Answer.  Half-way  between  College  Point  and  Wilkins'  Point — 
probably  a  mile. 

Question.  Is  not  College  Point  nearer  the  Flushing  steamboat 
landing? 

Answer.  Flushing  bay,  where  the  steamboat  lands,  is  probably  a 
little  short  of  a  mile  from  College  Point. 

William  Weeks,  sworn : 
Examined  by  Mr.  Hopkins. 

Question.  Tell  us  your  profession,  and  where  you  reside? 

Answer.  I  reside  at  Glencove,  Oyster  bay.  Long  Island  ;  T  am  doing 
business  in  New  York  city  as  an  auctioneer  and  real  estate  broker. 

Question.   Are  you  acquainted  with  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Tell  us  what  you  think  that  property  was  worth  about 
the  month  of  April,  1857,  the  time  the  government  purchased  it  ? 

Answer.  The  fact  of  the  government  taking  it  made  it  rather  more 
valuable.  I  consider  it  a  fancy  property.  All  the  property  along 
shore  is  classed  as  fancy  property,  and  its  value  is  determined  by  what 
a  man  chooses  to  give  for  it.  I  judge  the  value  of  that  property  by 
comparing  it  with  other  properties  in  that  section  of  the  country  which 
have  been  sold.  I  conceive  that  $2,000  an  acre  would  not  be  extrava- 
gant tor  it,  some  portions  of  it  particularly.  I  have  sold  property  in 
that  section,  and  near  it,  for  private  residences^  at  $1,500  an  acre, 
which  1  did  not  conceive  so  well  located. 

Question.  How  much  land  did  you  sell  at  that  price? 

Answer.  Only  four  acres. 

Question.   Where  was  tliat? 

Answer.  At  White  iStone,  just  below.  It  only  had  a  small  front  and 
run  back.     There  were  no  improvements  u})on  it,  not  even  a  tree. 

Question.  What  is  the  distance  between  Wilkins'  Point  and  White 
Stone? 

Answer.  It  is  only  across  the  bay  ;  it  may  bo  a  mile. 

Question.  There  is  a  t^teamboat  landing  at  White  JStone? 

Answer.   Yes,  sir. 


TESTIMONY  335 

Question.  Would  not  the  fact  that  Congress  had  appropriated  money 
for  the  purchase  of  a  site  for  a  fortification  have  enhanced  the  value  of 
this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  There  is  no  doubt  of  that ;  yet  still  property  has  enhanced 
in  value  in  that  vicinity,  and  has  been  doing  so  all  through  the  last 
summer  through  the  panic. 

Question.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  sales  of  land  in  that  vicinity  ? 

Answer.  I  know  of  some  sales  much  further  beyond  and  in  the 
bay.  I  know  of  some  50  acres  which  was  sold  at  $500  an  acre,  which 
is  inland,  and  has  only  a  small  water  front,  quite  up  the  bay.  It  must 
be  eight  miles  from  this  Wilkins'  Point,  in  a  southeast  direction,  up 
a  bay  called  Cow  bay. 

Question  by  Mr.  Florence.  You  say  you  sold  the  property  at  White 
Stone  for  $1,500  an  acre  in  1856  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  was. 

Question,  There  were  no  improvements  on  it? 

Answer.  Not  a  particle  of  improvements.  There  is  now  a  very 
handsome  house  upon  it.     It  had  but  a  very  small  front. 

Question.  Was  it  a  fancy  property? 

Answer.  All  those  pieces  of  property  are  fancy  pieces  ;  and  if  a 
gentleman  fancies  one  of  them,  and  desires  to  buy  it,  of  course  he 
would  pay  a  price  for  it.  Tbe  price  is  not  calculated  upon  such  prop- 
erty because  of  its  cultivation  or  anything  of  that  kind,  but  very 
often  a  high  price  is  paid  for  a  property  by  a  person  who  wishes  to 
become  possessed  of  it,  merely  to  gratify  the  taste.  I  know  of  a  piece 
of  property  of  35  acres,  located  30  miles  from  the  city  of  New  York, 
half  of  it  meadow,  and  the  improvements  very  plain,  for  which  the 
owner  was  offered  $25,000. 

Question.  Was  that  on  Long  Island? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  on  the  East  river. 

Question.  Taking  into  consideration  the  fact  that  an  appropriation 
had  been  made  for  the  purchase  of  a  site  opposite  Fort  Schuyler  for 
fortification  purposes,  what  would  you  estimate  this  Wilkins'  Point 
property  (say  110  acres)  as  worth? 

Answer.  It  is  surrounded  by  water,  and  I  should  think  the  110 
acres  ought  to  be  worth  at  least  between  $1,500  and  $2,000. 

Examined  by  Mr.  Haskin  : 

Question.  Were  you  formerly  the  copartner  of  Anthony  J.  Bleecker? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  recollect  visiting  this  property  a  few  years  ago 
with  him? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  went  on  the  property  with  him. 

Question.  Did  not  Anthony  J.  Bleecker  reside  at  White  Stone? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  1  bought  the  property  he  resided  on. 

Question.  Did  you  understand  that  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point 
was  for  sale  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir,  certainly. 

Question.  Did  you  not  treat  with  him  about  the  purchase  of  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  How  long  ago  was  this? 


336  TESTIMONY. 

Answer.  In  1849  or  1850. 

Question.  Previous  to  or  after  John  De  Buyter  bought  it? 
Answer.  Previous  to  that. 
Question.  Who  owned  it  then  ? 
Answer.  I  think  Mr.  Willetts. 

Question.  How  much  did  he  then  ask  for  the  whole  tract? 
Answer.  I  am  under  the  impression  that  he  asked  in  tlie  neighbor- 
hood of  $40,000  for  about  one  hundred  and  fifty-two  acres. 
Question.  That  was  the  whole  tract? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  asked  between  $35,000  and  |40,000. 
Question.  Did  you  consider  it  a  bargain  at  that  price  ? 
Answer.  1  did  ;  and  I  think  Mr.  Bleecker  would  have  been  very  glad 
to  have  bought  it  if  he  could  have  controlled  the  means  for  that  purpose. 
Question.  Did  he  say  so  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  recollect  particularly,  but  I  know  he  was  always 
ready  when  others  furnished  the  means. 

Question.  What  did  Mr.  Bleecker  pay  for  the  place  he  lived  on  at 
White  Stone  ? 

Answer.  We  bought  it  in  1848,  110  acres,  for  |17,000. 
Question.   Do  you  know  Mr.  Wissman? 
Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  that  between  the  time  Mr.  Wissman 
had  the  property  conveyed  to  him  and  the  time  he  sold  it,  he  had  it 
in  the  market  for  sale,  mapped  out  in  villa  plats? 

Answer.  Only  by  hearsay.  He  talked  with  me  once  about  it,  and 
said  that  he  had  some  notion  of  making  a  sale. 

Question.  Did  he  state  what  he  would  take  for  the  whole  property? 
Answer.  He  did  not. 

Question.  Did  he  ever  fix  a  price  upon  it  per  acre  ? 
Answer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question.  If  the  act  making  an  appropriation  for  the  purchase  of 
a  site  had  not  been  passed,  what,  in  your  judgment,  would  the  pro- 
perty have  been  worth  in  February,  1957  ? 

Answer.  That  would  depend  upon  the  customers  who  would  seek  it. 
Question.  I  mean  what  would  it  have  been  worth  for  villa  sites  or 
for  speculating  purposes? 

Answer.  If  a  forced  sale  of  the  property  was  made,  I  cannot  tell 
what  it  would  be  worth. 

Question.  What  would  it  have  been  worth  in  February,  1857,  for 
villa  sites  or  as  an  investment  in  real  estate  near  New  York  city,  with 
a  reasonable  expectation  of  the  rise  in  the  value  of  property  ? 

Answer.  If  I  had  got  the  property  and  hel  1  it,  in  my  opinion  it 
would  have  been  a  good  investment  to  have  held  even  at  $1,000  an 
acre  ;  but  very  frequently  when  a  man  gets  hold  of  such  a  i)roperty 
he  cannot  wait  until  he  can  secure  a  purchases  on  his  own  terms,  but 
has  to  sell. 

Question.  If  tlie  mortgage  for  $85 ,000  had  been  foreclosed  in  March, 
1857,  and  the  property  sohl  under  it,  what  would  it  have  brought?,  g 
Answer.  1  declare  I  would   not  like  to  say  what  it   would  have 
brought. 


TESTIMONY.  337 

Question.  How  much  would  it  have  brought  under  such  circum- 
stances on  the  1st  of  March,  1857  ? 

Witness.   With  no  prospect  of  having  any  particular  customer  for  it? 

Chairman.  Without  any  expectation  of  the  government  purchasing 
or  ever  intending  to  purchase  it. 

Witness.  I  should  suppose  that  it  ought  to  have  brought  $1,000, 
but  I  doubt  whether  it  would  have  brought  that. 

Question.  I  ask  you  what  you  suppose  it  would  have  brought? 

Answer.  I  cannot  tell  what  it  would  have  brought,  but  I  can  say 
on  what  terms  it  would  have  been  a  good  speculation  to  have  pur- 
chased it. 

Question.   What  do  you  think  it  would  have  brought? 

Answer.  It  might  not  have  brought  any  more  than  the  mortgage. 

Question.   Or  as  much? 

Answer.  I  believe  it  would  have  brought  as  much  ;  I  should  think 
it  would,  because  property  in  this  locality  was  then  in  demand. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  that  if  it  had  then  been  sold  without  the 
mortgage  being  foreclosed,  that  it  would  have  brought  more  than  the 
mortgage  ? 

Answer.  I  should  think  that  probably  it  might  have  brought  more  ; 
it  would  have  depended  altogether  upon  the  terms,  for  cash  specu- 
lators like  to  string  out  their  money  pretty  well. 

Question.  How  much  more  than  the  mortgage  do  you  think  it  would 
have  brought  ? 

Answer.   I  do  not  know. 

Question.  How  much  moie  if  the  mortgage  was  foreclosed  and  the 
property  sold  ? 

Answer.  In  my  judgment  it  would  not  have  come  much  short  of 
$100,000. 

Question.  If  it  had  been  sold  under  a  foreclosure  of  the  mortgage 
on  the  23d  of  April  would  it  have  made  any  difference? 

Mr.  Florence.  With  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  government 
had  appropriated  money  to  purchase  a  site  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  it  would  have  made  any  difference. 

Mr.  Florence.  What !  with  the  knowledge  that  the  government 
intended  purchasing  it  ? 

Answer.  That  would  have  made  a  vast  difference  ;  there  must 
always  be  an  object  for  purchasers  to  buy. 

Question.  How  much  difference  would  it  have  made? 

Answer.   A  difference  of  nearly  100  per  cent. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Is  Wilkins'  Point  the  only  site  adap- 
ted for  the  fortification  ? 

Answer.  It  is  better  adapted  for  a  fortification  than  any  other  site. 

Question.  Putting  out  of  the  question  the  design  of  the  government 
to  purchah^^-  a  site  opposite  Fort  Schuyler  for  a  fortification,  or  that 
such  a  site  would  ever  be  required,  what,  in  your  judgment,  would 
the  property  have  sold  for  under  a  foreclosure  of  the  mortgage  on  the 
23d  of  April,  1857? 

Answer.  I  must  preface  a  little  before  I  answer.  Property  situated 
like  this  is  classed  as  fancy  property,  and  we  have  to  wait  until  a  party 
fancies  it  before  we  can  get  a  price  for  it.  I  think  that,  if  sold  on  the 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549 22 


338  TESTIMONY. 

23d  of  April,  it  would  have  brought  nearly  $100,000;  that  is  my  im- 
pression. I  consider  it  a  very  valuable  piece  of  property  for  fancy  or 
certain  purposes,  and  there  is  but  few  such  pieces  of  property. 

Question.  Is  there  not  a  steamboat  landing  at  Whitestone,  and  is 
not  property  there  more  marketable  and  valuable  than  this  property 
at  Wilkins'  Point,  throwing  out  of  the  question  the  matter  of  the 
fortification  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir  ;  because  a  capitalist — a  man  having  means — 
would  prefer,  in  purchasing,  to  go  a  little  way  off  from  a  locality 
rather  than  be  near  it 

Question.  That  is,  in  purchasing  a  fancy  place  ? 

Answer.  We  are  speaking  of  fancy  places. 

Question.  But  is  not  the  property  around  Whitestone  more  valuable 
than  this  at  Wilkins'  Point  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir. 

Question.  Were  you  not  called  upon  by  Prosper  M.  Wetmore  in 
relation  to  this  property  at  Wilkins'  Point? 

Answer.  I  was. 

Question.   When  ? 

Answer.  1  cannot  tell. 

Question.  What  did  he  say? 

Answer.  All  that  he  stated  was,  that  he  had  called  on  me  to  get 
miy  opinion  as  to  its  value 

Question.  Where  did  he  call  on  you? 

Answer.  At  my  office  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Question.  You  do  not  recollect  the  month  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not. 

Question,   Who  called  with  him  ? 

Answer.  No  one 

Question.  Did  you  ever  see  George  Irving  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Who  paid  your  for  signiug  the  certificate  of  value? 

Answer.  I  have  never  had  any  pay  foi  it ;  Mr.  Wetmore  called  on 
me  and  asked  me  to  sign  it,  but  he  has  never  paid  me  for  it. 

Question.  He  was  to  pay  you  ? 

Answer.  He  talked  about  it,  but  it  has  never  come  yet.  He  told 
me  he  would  remunerate  me,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  he  stated 
that  he  would  give  me  $50,  or  what  sura. 

Question.  You  signed  the  certificate  to  accommodate  General  Wet- 
more ? 

Answer.  He  called  on  me  and  asked  me  whether  I  knew  the  locality, 
and  what  might  be  its  value.  I  told  him  I  did  ;  gave  him  my  opinion, 
and  signed  the  certificate. 

Question.  Were  there  any  other  signatures  to  it  when  you  signed  it? 
Answer.  I  declare  I  have  forgotten  whether  there  was  or  not. 
Question.   Did  any  other  person  than  Gen.  Prosper    M.    Wetmore 
ever  call  ui)on  you  in  relation  to  it  ? 
Answer.  No,  one. 

Question.  Did  he  tell  you  at  the  time  that  he  was  interested  in  it? 
Answer.  No.  sir. 
Question.  Did  he  tell  you  who  had  an  interest  in  it? 


TESTIMONY.  339 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  he  did. 

Question,  (by  Mr.  Florence,)  You  expressed  your  disinterested 
opinion  in  that  certificate  you  signed  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  sir 

Question.  Based  upon  your  knowledge  of  the  value  of  property  in 
the  vicinity  ? 

Answer.  I  had  heard  it  talked  of  that  this  property  was  going  to 
be  sold  to  the  government. 

Question,  (by  the  Chairman.)  Did  you  sign  that  certificate  because 
you  knew  the  government  was  negotiating  for  the  purchase  of  the 
property  ? 

Answer.  I  had  such  a  suspicion,  but  I  did  not  know  who  the  parties 
selling  it  were,  or  anything  about  it. 

Question.  Do  you  know  who  the  parties  interested  in  the  sale  of 
this  property  to  the  government  were  ? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.   Did  General  P.  M.  Wetmore  never  tell  you? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  Augustus  Schell  ever  call  on  you  in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Question.  Did  John  C.  Mather,  or  Richard  Schell,  ever  call  on  you 
in  relation  to  it? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 


APPENDIX 


A. 

[Confidential.  J 

Engineer  Department, 

Washington,  March  12,  1857. 

Sir  :  Congress  naving  appropriated^,  by  act  of  3d  Marcli,  1857,  '^  for 
the  commencement  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New  York, 
$150,000,"  I  have  to  request  you  to  visit  the  locality  at  the  earliest 
moment  your  other  duties  will  permit,  and  examine  the  ground  with 
a  view  to  the  selection  of  a  site,  and  to  enter  into  negotiations  with 
the  owners  for  its  purchase. 

Herewith  is  sent  a  tracing  of  a  survey  of  both  sides  of  the  East 
river  in  the  vicinity  of  the  proposed  work,  from  which  you  will  per- 
ceive that  considerable  latitude  in  the  location  of  the  fort  is  allowable, 
either  ^^Wilkins's  Point/'  the  neighborhood  of  the  ^' old  fort/'  or 
'^  Whitestone  Point,"  affording  eligible  sites.  Advantage  should 
be  taken  of  a  circumstance  so  favorable  in  negotiating  for  the  neces- 
sary land,  so  as  to  bring  the  owners  in  competition  and  secure  fair 
terms  to  the  government. 

The  quantity  of  land  to  be  purchased  will  depend  on  the  cost,  and 
also  on  the  configuration  of  the  site  determined  upon.  Should  Wil- 
kins's  Point  be  selected,  tlie  United  States  should,  if  possible,  obtain 
all  beyond  the  narrow  connecting  neck.  At  the  "old  fort"  the 
limits  may  be,  say,  a  quarter  by  half  a  mile  ;  and  at  ''  Whitestone 
Point  '  the  boundaries  may  be  the  shore  lines,  extending,  say,  600 
yards  from  the  point,  and  a  straight  line  connecting  their  further  ex- 
tremities, thus  enclosing  a  triangular  space. 

You  will  report  to  this  office  as  early  as  practicable  the  results  of 
your  examination  of  the  ground,  and  a  statement  of  the  terms  on 
which  the  owners  of  the  sites  indicated  will  sell  the  land. 

You  will  plainly  understand  that  the  more  eligible  position  has 
been  deemed  to  be  "  Wilkins's  Point,"  and  a  project  for  that  position 
was  made  more  than  thirty  years  ago.  Still,  in  fact,  that  is  not  the 
only  j)oint,  and  tlie  owner  of  Wilkins's  should  be  made  to  understand 
this  clearly  ;  because  it  is  thought  that  it  was  bought  by  him,  and 
built  upon,  in  the  expectation  of  forcing  the  government  to  purchase 
at  a  large  price. 

Your   good  management,  which  should  begin   at  once,  will  make 
the  difference  of  a  good  many  thousand  dollars,  I  have  no  doubt. 
I  am,  tK;c., 

J.  G.   TOTTEN, 
Brevet  Brigadier  General  and  Colonel  Engineers. 

Major  J.  G.  Barnard,  Corps  of  Engineers^  N.  Y. 


APPENDIX.  341 

Engineer  Department, 

February  2^,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers^  in  charge. 


B. 

Engineer  Department, 

Washington,  March  12,  1857. 
Sir  :  You  were  notified  by  department  letter  of  this  date  that  Con- 
gress had  appropriated,  for  the  commencement  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort 
Schuyler,  New  York,  $150,000,  and  instructed  to  enter  into  negotia- 
tion for  the  purchase  of  the  necessary  site  for  the  work. 

As  the  law  requires  that  jurisdiction  over  sites  for  forts,  &c.,  shall 
be  obtained  before  any  money  can  be  expended  thereon,  I  have  to  re- 
quest that  you  will  take  immediate  steps  to  secure  from  the  legislature 
of  New  York,  now  in  session,  a  grant  of  jurisdiction  over  such  land  as 
may  be  acquired  by  the  United  States  for  the  purposes  of  the  work. 
Although  the  precise  site  of  the  work  remains  undetermined,  within 
certain  limits^  I  presume  there  will  be  no  objection  by  the  legislature 
to  ceding  the  jurisdiction  on  that  account. 

Enclosed  is  a  draft  of  an  act  of  cession  which,  it  is  thought,  em- 
braces all  the  requisite  conditions,  and  will  be  free  from  all  objec- 
tions, as  far  as  the  legislature  is  concerned.  Should  you  consider  any 
alterations  advisable,  please  notify  them  to  this  office  for  considera- 
tion. 

I  am,  &c., 

JOS.  G.  TOTTEN, 
Brevet  Brigadier  General  and  Colonel  Engineers. 
Major  J.  G.  Barnard,  Corps  of  Engineers^  N.  Y. 

Engineer  Department, 

February  25,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


C. 

[Private.) 


New  York,  March  20,  1857. 
My  Dear  General  :  The  enclosed  is  a  copy  of  a  draft  of  an  act 
which  (with  the  Fort  Tompkins  tract  combined,)  I  have  this  day  for- 
warded to  the  Hon.  D.  R.  Y.  Jones,  representative  from  this  district, 
and  asked  his  aid  in  procuring  a  prompt  action  of  the  legislature. 


342  APPENDIX. 

I  have  awaited  information  as  to  the  best  thing  to  ask  and  the  best 
mode  of  proceeding. 

The  draft  was  given  me  by  the  district  attorney,  Mr.  McKeon,  who 
objected  to  conceding  to  New  York  concurrent  jurisdiction  for  any 
purpose,  merely  giving  them  the  power  of  executing  process  fcr  acts 
committed  outside  of  our  tract.  He  seemed  to  attach  importance  to- 
this,  and,  as  I  understood,  had  caused  such  acts  as  had  been  recently 
obtained  under  his  direction  to  be  in  this  form. 

Major  Delafield  said  the  extension  of  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  iour  hundred  yards  beyond  low  water  ought  not  to  he  asked,  and 
would  not  be  granted,  and  Mr.  McKeon  finally  concurred  in  leaving  it 
out ;  but  as  it  was  in  your  draft  I  thought  I  i^ould  leave  it  in,  letting 
it  be  struck  out  if  they  tuoidd  not  grant  it. 

I  think  I  now  know  pretty  well  what  we  will  have  to  do  as  to  the 
Long  Island  site,  but  defer  making  any  recommendation  until  I  have 
been  over  all  the  ground.  I  coidd  not  do  so  this  week,  the  weather 
has  been  so  bad,  and  1  have  had  parties  all  the  time  to  see  here  ;  will 
go  early  next  week. 

I  am,  verv  respectfully,  your  most  obedient, 

el.  G.  BARNARD,  Brevet  Major, 

General  Totten,  Chief  Engineer. 

If  you  would  modify  this  draft,  please  return  it,  witli  your  wishes, 
or  return  it  any  way. 


AN  ACT  to  cede  to  the  United  States  jurisdiction  over  certain  land  in  the  county  of  Queens^, 

Long  Island. 

The  pe(y[}le  of  the  State  of  New  York,  dec,  do  enact  as  folloivs  : 

Section  1.  Jurisdiction  is  hereby  ceded  to  the  United  States  over 
all,  and  each,  and  every  tract  of  land  on  the  island  of  Long  Island, 
in  the  county  of  Queens,  Long  Island,  in  a  direction  opposite  Fort 
Schuyler,  East  river,  that  may  be  acquired  by  the  United  States,  un- 
der the  appropriation  of  March  30,  1857,  by  Congress,  for  the  com- 
mencement of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New  York,  for  the 
purpose  of  building  and  maintaining  thereon  forts,  magazines,  arse- 
nals, dock-yards,  wharves,  and  otlier  structures,  with  their  append- 
ages, and  oVer  all  the  contiguous  shores,  fiats,  and  waters  within  four 
hundred  yards  from  low-water  mark.  And  all  right,  title,  and  claim 
which  this  State  may  have  to  or  in  the  premises  aforesaid  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  United  States:  Provided,  That  this  State  shall  have 
all  necessary  and  needful  })ower  for  the  service  and  execution  of  all 
due  processes  of  law,  under  the  authority  of  this  State,  against  any 
person  or  persons  charged  with  any  matter  committed  without  the 
premises  aibresaid  and  without  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  same  way  and  manner  as  if  this  act  had  not 
been  passed. 

Section  2.  The  premises  over  which  jurisdiction  is  granted  by  thia 


APPENDIX,  313 

act,  and  all  structures  and  other  property  thereon  shall  be  exonerated 
and  discharged  from  all  taxes  and  assessments  which  may  be  laid 
or  imposed  under  authority  of  this  State  while  said  premises  shall  re- 
main the  property  of  the  United  States  and  shall  be  used  for  the  pur- 
pose intended  by  this  act. 

Section  3.  This  act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 


appendix  d. 

Engineer  Department, 
Washington,  March  21,  1857. 
Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  20th 
instant,  enclosing  a  copy  of  the  draft  of  an  act  which  you  have  for- 
warded to  the  representative  of  your  district  to  be  submitted  to  the 
legislature  of  New  York,  granting  the  United  States  jurisdiction  over 
the  land  for  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

The  provisions  of  the  act  seem  to  be  unobjectionable,  the  modifica- 
tions made  at  the  instance  of  the  district  attorney  in  the  draft  sent  to 
you  from  this  office  being  important. 

The  principal  object  in  asking  the  jurisdiction  over  the  contiguous 
ghores,  waters,  tl'c,  was  to  secure  the  necessary  wharves,  &c.,  which 
may  be  required  for  the  use  of  the  work,  being  within  the  ceded  limits. 
The  limit  of  400  yards  might  perhaps  be  reduced  without  inconve- 
nience, and  if  any  serious  objection  be  made  to  extending  the  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  water,  it  might  be  further  restricted  to  the  wharves  and 
buildings  thereon. 

The  draft  of  the  proposed  act  is  returned  herewith,  as  required. 
Very,  &c., 

JOS.  G.  TOTTEN, 
Brev.  Brig.  Gen.  and  Colonel  Engineers. 
Major  J   Gr.  Barnard, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  York. 


E. 

Engineer  Dei^artment, 
Washington,  March  26,  1857. 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  24th  inst.,  on  the  subject  of  the  land 
required  for  the  site  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  has  been  received, 
with  the  two  tracings  of  the  grounds  in  the  vicinity  of  "  Wilkins' 
Point"  and  the  ^'old  fort." 

As  the  prices  demanded  by  the  owners  of  the  land  are  considered 
exorbitant,  I  deem  it  of  the  utmost  importance  that  you  should,  during 
your  personal  examination  of  the  locality,  confer  with  persons  residing 
in  the  neighborhood  in  reference  to  the  value  of  similar  property 
around  them,  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  the  prices  de- 
manded are  considered  fair,  by  persons  on  the  spot. 

I  have  no  idea  that  the  Secretary  of  War  will  authorize  an  offer  to 
Mr.  Wissmann  of  the  sum  you  mention  for  his  property  at  Wilkins' 
Point,  and  therefore  have  not  submitted  your  proposition  to  him. 
Should  it  ever  prove,  after  further  negotiations  and  investigation,  that 


344  APPENDIX. 

the  land  cannot  be  procured  on  better  terms  than  those  now  offered, 
it  is  still  very  doubtful  whether  so  large  a  sum  should  be  paid,  except 
on  the  award  of  a  jury.  It  is,  therefore,  the  more  indispensable  that 
a  law  should  be  at  once  obtained  authorizing  the  condemnation  of  the 
land,  whether  to  be  resorted  to  or  not. 

Any  objection  which  the  legislature  may  make  to  granting  jurisdic- 
tion over  such  land  as  the  government  may  purchase  for  the  site,  can^ 
I  think,  be  easily  removed  by  explaining  in  person  the  reasons  for 
asking  it ;  and  you  are,  therefore,  authorized  to  visit  Albany  for  this 
purpose,  and  to  attend  to  any  other  matters  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject of  jurisdiction  and  condemnation  of  the  property,  which  may  be 
advanced  by  your  personal  attention. 

The  sketch  of  Wilkins'  Point  furnished  with  your  letter^  and  to 
which  you  refer  for  the  position  and  boundaries  of  Mr.  Day's  tract, 
does  not  afford  such  information;  and  is,  therefore,  returned,  with 
request  that  you  will  have  the  tracts,  both  of  Mr.  Day  and  Mr.  Wiss- 
man,  distinctly  marked  thereon. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Day  to  Mr.  Van  Nostrand  is  returned  herewith, 
as  requested. 

lam,  &c  ,  J.  G.  TOTTEN, 

Brevet  Brigadier  General  and  Colonel  Engineers. 

Major  J.  G-.  Barnard, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  J^ork. 

Engineer  Department, 

Fehriiary  25,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

H    G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


F. 

[Received  March  28,   1857.] 

New  York,  March  29,  (27,)  1855,  (57.) 

Sir  :  I  respectfully  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
25th  instant  respecting  proceedings  to  be  taken  with  regard  to  the 
purchase  of  "  Wilkins'  Point." 

I  have  no  doubt  the  course  directed  as  to  the  manner  of  obtaining 
possession  of  this  property  is  the  best,  and  was  prepared  to  recommend 
it  myself. 

I  shall  i)roceed  to  Albany  tliis  evening  and  endeavor  to  get  the 
laws  directed. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient, 

J.  G.  BARNARD, 

Brevet  General,  Engineers. 
General  Joseph  G.  Totten, 

Chief  Engineer,  d:c. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copv  from  tlie  original  now  on  file  in  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Capt.  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


APPENDIX.  345 


G. 


[Confidential.  J 

New  York,  March  28,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  wrote  you  yesterday  that  I  should  proceed  to-day  to  Albany, 
but  afterwards  concluded  that  as  I  could  do  little  there  to-day  I  had 
better  remain  here.  I  have  just  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Jones,  of 
the  assembly,  in  which  he  states  that  the  act  of  cession  will  pass,  my 
written  explanations  having  proved  sufficient,  so  that  except  to  get 
the  condemnation,  there  is  no  necessity  for  my  going  there. 

Now,  in  reference  to  that,  further  reflection  and  knowledge  of  the 
actual  state  of  things  has  induced  me  to  hesitate  about  its  expediency, 
and  before  going  to  Albany  with  that  object  I  think  best  to  consult  you. 

I  wrote  you  yesterday  under  the  impression  that  the  agreement  or 
sale  to  Irving,  which  I  described  yesterday,  was  got  up  as  an  instru- 
ment of  exaction. 

But  I  feel  now  pretty  well  satisfied  that  Mr.  Weissman  was  not 
concerned  in  it.  It  was,  I  believe,  the  operation  of  a  speculator,  and 
Mr.  Weissman,  I  think,  need  only  be  charged  with  the  folly  of  listen- 
ing to  this  class  of  people.  He  is  a  simple  man,  and  his  head  has 
been  upset  by  the  idea  of  the  great  value  of  his  land  to  the  United 
States,  and  by  the  conflicting  solicitations  and  representations  by 
which  he  has  been  assailed. 

He  has  been  made  to  understand  that  the  United  States  will  not 
pay  an  exorbitant  price,  and  that  he  will  only  embarrass  himself  by 
losing  the  sale  to  the  government  through  this  man  Irving. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  real  value  of  the  property,  I  have  told  you 
how  lands  (with  water  fronts)  in  the  vicinity  were  held  and  estimated. 
I  have  told  you  how  this  tract  is  generally  regarded  by  all  acquainted 
with  it,  viz :  as  one  of  the  most  valuable  now  remaining  unoccupied 
on  the  East  river.  I  told  you  that  I  thought  tlie  United  States  need 
not  expect  to  pay  less  than  $700  or  .^750  per  acre,  and  I  feel  confident 
that  a  jury  would  not  assess  his  house  and  expenses  on  the  property 
at  less  than  $15,000. 

If,  therefore,  the  property  is  condemned,  I  feel  confident  that 
$100,000  will  be  as  low  a  value  as  we  could  expect  from  a  fair  and 
honest  jury.  I  am  fortified  in  this  by  the  opinions  of  many  men  of 
wealth  and  standing,  who  either  reside  in  the  neighborhood  or  who 
are  acquainted  with  tlie  land.  You  well  know  that  in  all  such  cases 
the  most  honest  juries  are  always  inclined  to  award  a  round  liberal 
sum  to  the  party  against  the  United  States. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  instead  of  buying  for  $100,000  when  loe  can, 
we  chose  to  seize  and  condemn,  every  possible  influence  will  be 
brought  to  bear  to  obtain  an  exorbitant  award  from  a  jury,  not  by 
Mr.  Weissman,  for  he  has  not  tact,  nor  shrewdness,  nor  influence, 
nor  enterprise  enough,  but  by  speculators,  into  whose  hands,  in  spite 
of  himself,  he  will  fall,  and  whose  eyes  have  been  on  this  property 
ever  since  the  appropriation  was  passed.  This  danger  is  not  imagi- 
nary;  men  of  wealth  and  influence  will  lend  themselves  to  it,  and  in 
addition,  the  popular  idea  that  the  construction  of  a  work  here  will 


346  APPENDIX. 

damage  all  the  property  around  will  be  used  to  make  the  United 
States  pay  heavily  for  coming  there.  This  idea  is  very  prevalent 
with  every  one.  It  was  so  even  twenty- five  years  ago,  when  Fort 
Schuyler  was  building,  when  the  wealthy  residents  in  this  same 
locality  exhibited  the  greatest  aversion  to  our  works  at  Fort  Schuyler, 
though  they  had  the  East  river  between. 

I  give  it  as  my  firm  conviction,  that  if  the  United  States  seize  this 
property,  iliey  iviil  not  get  it  for  the  existing  appropriation ;  and  that 
not  only  delay  in  the  commencing  of  the  work,  but  in  the  obtaining  a 
title  will  ensue. 

It  will  be  regarded  by  the  community  here  as  the  more  inexcusable, 
if  it  is  known  that  the  property  can  now  be  purchased  for  what  they 
regard  as  a  reasonable  sum. 

I  have  good  reason  to  believe  that,  if  authorized  between  now  and 
the  Ist  of  April,  I  can  secure  Mr.  Wissmann's  property  for  $100,000; 
that  under  the  advice  of  prudent  friends  he  will,  rather  than  embar- 
rass the  sale,  sell  for  that  sum  to  the  United  States,  After  the  Ist 
it  may  not  be  so  easy  ;  but  I  doubt  whether  Mr.  Irving's  purchase  will 
amount  to  anything,  as  it  is  doubted  whether  he  can,  or  will  pay 
the  $5,000. 

With  Mr.  Wissmann's  land  secured,  Mr.  Day's  will  give  no  em- 
barrassment. We  can  purchase  reasonably,  or  we  can  commence 
work  without  purchasing,  or  we  can  seize. 

Mr.  Day,  apparently  with  the  utmost  frankness  and  sincerity,  ex- 
presses a  preference  for  the  latter  course.  He  is  perfectly  confident 
that  he  would  get  an  award  that  would  be  satisfactory  to  him. 

I  have  thought  best  to  submit  all  this  to  you.  If  I  go  to  Albany 
and  ask  a  bill  of  condemnation,  from  that  moment  the  land  will  rise. 
Speculators  will  get  possession,  and  no  jury  we  can  appoint  will  pre- 
vent their  making  a  good  thing  of  it.  Our  titles  will  be  delayed  as 
well  as  our  work.  I  should  desire  to  learn  here  what  course  you 
direct  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  that  I  may  either  negotiate 
with  Mr.  Wissmann  or,  if  necessary,  go  to  Albany. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  G.   BARNARD, 
Brevet  Major  of  Engineers. 

General  J.  G.  Totten, 

Chief  Engineer,  dec. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original  now  on  file  in  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


H. 

Engineer  Department, 

Washirigton,  March  28,  1857. 
Sir  :   1  believe  the  enclosed  copy  of  the  act  of  the  legislature  of  New 
York,  authorizing  the  condemnation  of  a  2)art  of  the  land  constituting 
the  site  of  Fort  Porter,  will  afford  all  the  inl'ormation  you  require  as 


APPENDIX.  347 

to  the  proper  form  of  a  law,  to  be  asked  of  the  legislature,  for  con- 
demning lands  for  the  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

The  law  of  New  York,  under  which  the  proceedings  of  condemna- 
tion are  to  be  conducted,  is  referred  to  in  the  body  of  the  act,  and  may 
be  found  in  the  revised  statutes  of  the  State. 

In  drawing  up  a  form  of  the  law,  for  presentation  to  the  legislature, 
the  latter  part,  instead  of  giving  concurrent  jurisdiction  to  the  State 
over  the  land,  should  be  made  to  conform  to  Mr.  McKeon's  recom- 
mendation. 

Your  letter  of  the  27th  inst. ,  asking  instructions  as  to  the  application 
of  the  new  appropriations,  has  been  received,  and  will  be  attended  to. 
I  am,  &c.,  JOS.  a.  TOTTEN, 

Brevet  Brig.  Gen.  and  Col.  Encfrs. 

Major  J.  G.  Barnard, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  Neio  York. 

Engineer  Department,  February  25,  1858. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

H.  a.  WRIGHT, 
Capt.  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


I. 

Engineer  Department, 
Washington,  March  30,  1&57. 
Sir  :  You  will  proceed  without  delay  to  Albany  and  attend  per- 
sonally to  procuring  from  the  legislature  of  New  York  an  act  author- 
izing the  condemnation  of  the  land  which  the  United  States  requires 
for  the  site  of  the  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  and  urge,  at  the  same 
time,  the  passage  of  a  law  granting  to  the  United  States  jurisdiction 
over  the  same,  as  well  as  over  the  land  which  it  is  proposed  to  pur- 
chase on  Stater  Island  for  enlarging  the  site  of  Fort  Tompkins. 

The  Secretary  of  War  considers  it  indispensable  to  procure,  if 
practicable,  this  law  for  the  condemnation  of  the  land  opposite  Fort 
Schuyler,  the  question  whether  recourse  shall  be  had  to  it  being  left 
for  future  consideration. 

By  order  of  General  Totten. 
Very,  &c., 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain^  and  Assistant  Chief  Engineer. 
Major  J.  G.  Barnard, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  York, 

P.  S.  Your  letter  of  the  28th  instant,  marked '*  confidential,"  is 
received.  A  copy  of  the  law  authorizing  the  condemnation  of  a  part 
of  the  land  forming  the  site  of  Fort  Porter  was  sent  to  you  on  Satur- 
day for  your  information,  directed  to  Congress  Hall,  Albany. 

H.  G.  W. 

Engineer  Department,  February  25,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


348  APPENDIX. 

J. 

The  Magnetic  Telegraph  Company — Morse  line— between  New  York  and 
New  Orleans  direct,  and  connecting  at  Philadelphia  with  the  western 
lines.  Washington  Office,  National  Hotel,  Pennsylvania  avenue,  cor- 
ner of  Sixth. 

Dated  New  York,  March  31,  1857. 
Sir  :  It  will  be  most  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States 
if  the  land  passes  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  as  it  will  do  to-mor- 
row, if  I  am  not  authorized  to  secure  it  to-day. 

I  beg  my  letter  of  yesterday  may  be  referred  to  the  Secretary  of 
War,  and  a  despatch  sent  me  to-day. 
Letter  of  March  30  received. 

J.  G.  BAKNARD, 

4  Boiding  Green. 
Captain  H.  Gr.  Wright, 

In  charge  of  Engineer  Bureau. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original  filed  in  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


K. 

Engineer  Department 


Washington,  April  1,  1857. 

Sir  :  A  reply  to  your  telegraphic  despatch  of  yesterday,  in  reference 
to  securing  the  land  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  was,  the  same  day,  sent 
by  telegraph  to  your  address.  No.  4  Bowling  Green,  New  York,  in 
the  words  recited  below. 

Very,  &c., 

JOS.  G.  TOTTEN, 
Brevet  Brigadier  General  and  Colonel  Engineers, 
Major  J.  G.  Barnard, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  York. 

"  I  have  seen  the  Secretary,  who  adheres  to  former  instructions. 
He  will  not  agree  to  paying  so  much  for  the  land  without  further  in- 
vestigation, and  perhaps  a  condemnation.     The  act  of  condemnation 
should  be  promi)tly  secured. 
^'  Bv  order  of  General  Totten, 

'^H.  G.  WRIGHT, 

^'  Captain  of  Engineers,'* 

Engineer  Department,  February  25,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


APPENDIX.  349 


New  York,  April  6,  185*7. 
Sir  :  I  succeeded  in  having  reported  to  the  Senate  an  amendatory 
paragraph  to  the  assembly  bill  granting  "  permission  to  purchase, 
and  ceding  jurisdiction"  of  the  site  of  a  fort  ''  opposite  Fort  Schuy- 
ler," to  this  "effect,"  and  if  it  be  found  impracticable  to  "pur- 
chase on  such  terms  as  the  United  States  shall  deem  equitable, 
the  consent  of  the  legislature  is  hereby  given  to  the  United  States 
taking  so  much  land  as  shall  be  necessary  for  the  purpose,  on  just  and 
full  compensation  being  provided  the  owners  thereof,  in  accordance 
with,  (section  and  titles,  &c.,  enumerated^)  *  *  Revised  Statutes." 
We  could  not  get  the  cession  of  jurisdiction  in  the  form  recom- 
mended by  Mr.  McKeon  ;  but  a  concicrrent  jnrisd'iction  only  was  given 
in  words  something  like  the  following  : 

"  Jurisdiction  (of  such  land  as  may  be  purchased  or  taken  for  pur- 
poses enumerated)  is  ceded  to  the  United  States  ;  provided  the  State 
of  New  York  shall  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  so  far  "  that  all  civil 
criminal  processes  may  be  served  therein  the  same  as  if  no  jurisdiction 
had  been  granted,  except  as  concerns  the  real  and  personal  property 
of  the  United  States."  (I  have  left  my  memoranda  at  home,  and  give 
the  substance  from  memory.) 

Mr.  Jones,  of  Queens  county,  (who  had  charge  of  the  bill  in  the 
assembly.)  told  me  it  was  impracticable  to  obtain  the  jurisdiction  in 
any  other  form.  The  committee  absolutely  refused  to  report  it  unless 
put  in  this  shape.  The  popular  sectional  feeling  had  much  to  do  with 
it :  hence,  it  was  not  worth  while  to  endanger  the  bill  by  stickling 
about  it. 

The  amended  bill  was  reported  favorably  to  the  senate  by  the  com- 
mittee on  the  judiciary,  and  as  it  will  not  be  called  up  for  a  day  or  two, 
and  I  could  do  nothing  in  the  meantime,  I  deemed  it  best  to  return 
here  where  my  duties  demanded  some  personal  attention.  The  amended 
bill  will  require  a  simple  "  concurrence"  of  the  assembly  (without  any 
recommittal)  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  passage  ;  but  to 
make  sure,  my  friends  thought  I  had  better  return  on  Tuesday  or 
Wednesday,  and,  with  your  authority,  I  will  do  so.  The  immense 
pressure  of  business  in  both  bodies  requires  that  every  bill  should  be 
carefully  watched. 

Your  letter  of  the  1st  instant  was  received  at  Albany. 
The  letter  of  March  31,  in  reference  to   Fort  Schuyler,  is  at  hand 
and  will  be  noticed  another  time. 

I  am.  verv  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  a.  BARNARD, 

Brevet  Major  Engineers. 
Gen.  J.  G-.  Totten, 

Chief  Engineer,  dtc,  Washington ,  D,  C. 

P.  S.     Jurisdiction  was  ceded  for  "  four  hundred  feet"  beyond  low 
water  line. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original  now  on  file  in  this  office, 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Capt.  of  Engineers y  in  charge. 


350  APPENDIX. 


M. 

[Private. — Received  April  IG,   1857.] 

New  York,  April  15. 

My  Dear  General  :  Before  taking  any  steps  with  regard  to  Wil- 
kins'  Point,  it  would  be  best  that  you  should  know  the  probability  that 
Cryder's  place  can  be  bought  for  much  less  than  I  estimated  in  my 
letter  of  March  24  ($114,000.)  I  was  mistaken  in  supposing  that  he 
considered  the  &um  he  had  expended  (|40,0U0)  on  his  house  and 
grounds  as  what  he  thought  he  ought  to  be  refunded  for  improvements. 

I  have  no  authority  to  say,  but  I  have  reason  to  believe,  that  his 
place  might  be  bought  for  about  |80,000. 

There  would  still  be  the  objection  as  to  the  injury  done  to  the  adja- 
cent places — Brown's  in  particular.  So  iar  as  I  can  learn,  the 
arrangment  with  Irving  went  into  effect  on  the  1st  April,  by  the  actual 
payment  of  the  $5,000. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  every  expedient  will  be  resorted  to  to  get  an 
enormous  price  for  this  land. 

Very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient, 

J.  G.  BARNAKD, 

General  Totten,  Brevet  Major. 

Chief  Engineer. 

Engineer  Department, 

February  27,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  original  filed  in  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers^  in  charge. 


N. 

Engineer  Office,  New  York,  April  25,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  herewith  enclose  you  the  official  copy  of  the  act  recently 
passed  by  the  legislature  of  this  State  ceding  jurisdiction,  t^^c,  to  the 
United  States. 

The  first  section  is  a  perfect  jumble.  It  would  seem  ibat,  as  it  first 
stood,  the  clause  ceding  "jurisdiction  over  "  certain  lands  "  and  over 
all  the  contiguous  shore  flats  and  waters  within  four  hundred  feet,"  had 
been  changed  by  making  it  a  mere  consent  to  purchase,  transferring  the 
cession  of  jurisdiction  to  a  separate  section,  (the  3d  ;)  while  the 
phrase  commencing  (as  quoted)  ''and  over,"  &c.,  has  been  left  inad- 
vertently to  stand  where,  isolated  from  its  connexion,  it  seems  to  have 
no  meaning. 

As  the  third  section  cedes  jurisdiction  over  all  the  "  property  referred 
to  and  set  forth  "  in  the  first,  however,  I  presume  a  reasonable  con- 
struction will  find  a  cession  of  jurisdiction  over  these  four  hundred  feet 
beyond  low-water  mark,  which  is  the  important  matter. 


APPENDIX.  351 

An  error,  (verbal,)  whether  of  the  official  copyist^  or  of  the  clerks 
of  the  senate  or  house,  I  know  not,  appears  in  the  third  line  of  the  first 
section,  by  which  "  Long  Island  "  is  written  "Loud  Island." 

I  don't  know  whether  admission  of  the  modification  of  the  last  sec- 
tion from  my  draft  is  a  fault  chargeable  to  me,  or  whether  Mr.  Jones 
found  it  necessary  so  to  change  it,  (as  he  said  he  had  to  make  a  new 
bill,  identical  with  one  before  passed  for  certain  lands  at  Ogdens- 
burgjh.) 

One  who  was  not  present  can  hardly  conceive  the  pressure  under 
which  both  houses  of  the  legislature  seemed  to  be  working,  nor 
the  number  o^  outsiders  whom  each  member  had  to  demand  his  atten- 
tion to  this  or  that  measure. 

I  but  once  succeeded  in  getting  hold  of  the  bill  itself,  (not  this,  but 
the  original  amended  bill,)  while  in  the  hands  of  the  chairman  of  the 
judiciary  committee.  In  explaining  to  him  the  amendment  required, 
and  showing  why  and  how  it  was  required,  and  overcoming  his  first 
objections  to  making  it,  I  exhausted  the  time  he  could  give  me,  and  I 
did  not  perceive  the  modification  of  the  section  alluded  to. 

I  do  not  know  that  it  is  of  much  importance,  but  it  would  have 
been  better  as  I  first  drew  it,  (conformably  to  the  draft  sent  from  the 
department.) 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient, 

J.  G.  BARNARD, 
Brevet  Major  Engineers. 

Gen.  J.  G.  Totten,  Chief  Engineer^  &c. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original,  now  on  file  in  this 
office.  H.  G.  WRIGHT, 

O aptain  of  Engineers ,  in  charge. 


O. 

George  Irving,  of  Great  Neck,  Queens  county.  Long  Island,  offers 
for  sale  the  neck  of  land  known  as  WiUett's  (or  Wilkins')  Neck,  sit- 
uated on  the  west  side  of  Little  Neck  bay,  and  directly  opposite  Fort 
Schuyler,  in  Westchester  county,  at  the  confluence  of  the  East  river 
and  Long  Island  Sound. 

The  situation  of  this  neck  is  peculiar.  It  commands,  not  only  the 
approaches  by  the  East  river  and  the  Sound,  but  the  two  open  bays  of 
Little  Neck  and  East  Chester,  while,  from  its  elevated  position,  it 
overlooks  Fort  Schuyler  and  Cryder's  Point. 

The  neck  contains  (exclusive  of  26  acres  belonging  to  Mr.  Day) 
about  130  acres  of  land.  It  is  surrounded  by  water  on  three  sides, 
and  the  fourth  is  protected  by  a  creek  and  marsh. 

It  will  be  sold  (exclusive  of  Mr.  Day's  laud)  for  the  sum  of  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  payable  as  follows  :  one  hundred  and  fif- 
teen thousand  dollars  on  the  first  day  of  July,  1857,  the  balance,  of 
eighty- five  thousand  dollars,  may  remain  on  mortgage  for  five  years 
if  desired. 


352  APPENDIX. 

This  offer  is  to  remain  binding  on  George  Irving  until  the  14th  of 
April,  1857. 

The  title  is  indisputable,  and  no  person  has  power  to  sell  it  but 
George  Irving. 

GEOBGE  IKVING. 

New  York,  April  3,  1857. 

(For  map,  see  original.) 

If  the  within  mentioned  tract  of  land  shall  amount,  upon  actual 
survey,  to  about  the  quantity  represented,  to  wit,  from  one  hundred 
to  one  hundred  and  thirty  acres,  and  the  title  thereto  shall  prove  to 
be  good,  as  ascertiiined  by  the  attorney  of  the  United  States  at  New 
York,  then  I  accept  the  within  offer  of  sale. 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War. 
War  Department,  April  28,  1857. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 

The  within  and  foregoing  are  true  copies  from  the  original  filed  in 
this  office.  H.  G.  WRIGHT, 

Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


This  indenture,  made  the  twelfth  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1857, 
between  Frederick  Wissmann,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  merchant, 
and  Celine  Frances,  his  wife,  and  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankensteyn,  of 
the  city  of  New  York,  trustee  of  certain  property  and  effects  for  the 
benefit  of  the  said  Celine  Frances  Wissmann,  who  executes  these 
presents  at  the  request  of  the  said  Celine  Frances,  signified  by  her 
executing  these  presents,  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  George  Irving, 
of  Little  Neck,  in  the  county  of  Queens,  and  State  of  New  York,  party 
of  the  second  part,  witnesseth  :  That  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part, 
for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  thou- 
sand dollars,  lawful  money  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  the 
said  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankensteyn,  trustee,  and  of  one  dollar  to  the 
said  Frederick  and  Celine  Frances  Wissmann,*  in  hand  jmid  by  the 
said  party  of  the  second  part,  at  or  before  the  ensealing  and  delivery 
of  these  presents,  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged,  have 
granted,  bargained,  sold,  aliened,  remised,  released,  conveyed,  and 
confirmed,  and  by  these  presents  do  grant,  bargain,  sell,  alien,  remise, 
release,  convey,  and  confirm  unto  the  said  party  of  tlie  second  part, 
and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever,  all  that  certain  farm,  tract,  or 
parcel  of  land,  situate,  lying,  and  being  near  a  place  called  Willett's 
Neck,  in  the  county  of  Queens,  and  State  of  New  York,  bounded  and 
described  as  follows,  that  is  to  say  :  Beginning  at  a  stake  on  the 
northeasterly  side  of  the  bridge,  across  the  creek,  in  the  centre  of  Mr. 
Wissmann's  new  private  road,  leading  from  the  highway  to  his  house, 
being  the  most  southerly  corner  of  Mr.   Day's  land  ;  and  running 

•  The  words  "said  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankensteyn,  trustee,  and  of  one  dollar  to  the 

said  Frederick  and  Celine  FnincoH  Wissinnnii,"  are  interlined  before  exeiution  hereof. 


APPENDIX  353 

thence  along  the  centre  of  said  road  norths  (37°  14^,)  thirty-seven 
degrees  fourteen  minutes  east,  (520)  five  hundred  and  twenty  feet  ; 
thence  north,  (26°  29',)  twenty-six  degrees  twenty-nine  minutes  east^ 
(140)  one  hundred  and  forty  feet ;  thence  north,  (22°  33',)  twenty- 
two  degrees  thirty-three  minutes  west,  (713  feet  6  inches)  seven  hun- 
dred and  thirteen  feet  six  inches  ;  thence  north,  (74°  36',)  seventy- 
four  degrees  thirty-six  minutes  west,  along  Mr.  Day's  land  to  the 
East  river  ;  thence  following  the  windings  of  the  river,  northerly  and 
easterly,  to  Little  Neck  hay  ;  thence  along  the  hay,  southerly  and 
westerly,  to  the  centre  of  the  creek  ahove  mentioned  ;  and  thence  fol- 
lowing the  centre  of  the  said  creek  as  it  winds  and  turns  in  a  northerly 
direction  to  the  point  of  heginning,  containing  ahout  one  hundred  and 
ten  acres,  be  the  same  more  or  less ;  together  with  a  right  of  way  over 
the  road  which  crosses  the  said  bridge  and  causeway,  running  to  the 
public  highway  :  together  with  all  and  singular  the  tenements, 
hereditaments,  and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging  or  in  anywise 
appertaining,  and  the  reversion  and  reversions,  remainder  and  re- 
mainders, rents,  issues,  and  profits  thereof.  And  also  all  the  estate, 
right,  title,  interest,  dower,  and  right  of  dower,  property,  possession, 
claim,  and  demand  whatsoever,  as  well  in  law  as  in  equity,  of  the 
said  parties  of  the  first  part,  of,  in,  or  to  the  above  described  premises, 
and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the  appurtenances  :  to  have 
and  to  hold  all  and  singular  the  above  mentioned  and  described 
premises,  together  with  the  appurtenances,  unto  the  said  party  of  the 
second  part,  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever.  And  the  said  Frederick 
Wissmann,  for  himself,  his  heirs,  executors,  and  administrators,  doth 
promise  and  agree  to  and  with  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  his 
heirs  and  assigns,  that  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  have  not  made, 
done,  committed,  executed,  or  suffered  any  act  or  acts,  thing  or  things 
whatsoever,  whereby,  or  by  means  whereof,  the  above  mentioned  and 
described  premises,  or  any  part  or  parcel  thereof,  now  are,  or  at  any 
time  hereafter,  shall  or  may  be  impeached,  charged,  or  encumbered, 
in  any  manner  or  way  whatsoever. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  parties  of  the  first  part  have  hereunto-  set 
their  hands  and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

FRED'K  WISSMANN.  [l.s.J 

CELINE  F.  WISSMANN.  [l.  s.^ 

C.  F.  VAN  BLANKENSTEYN,    [l.  s.; 

Trustee  for  Mrs.  (7.  F,  Van  Wissmann, 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of — 

Sam'l  Willett, 
As  to  the  signatures  of  Frederick  Wissman  and  wife. 

State  of  New  York,  1 
Queens  County^       \ 

On  this  13th  day  of  May,  1857,  before  me,  personally  came  Frederick 
Wissmann  and  Celine,  his  wife,  both  to  me  known  to  be  the  same 
individuals  described  in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  conveyance, 
who  severally  duly  acknowledged  that  they  executed  the  same ;  and 
the  said  Celine,  on  a  private  examination  by  and  before  me,  apart 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549 23 


354  -  APPENDIX. 

from  her  husLand,  acknowledged  that  she  executed  said  conveyance 
freely,  and  without  any  fear  or  compulsion  of  or  from  her  said 
husband. 

SAM'L  WILLETT, 

Justice  of  the  Peace, 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss. 

On  the  14th  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1857,  before  me,  came  C.  F. 
Van  Blankensteyn,  to  me  known  to  be  the  trustee  of  Celine  F.  Wiss- 
mann,  mentioned  and  described  in  and  who  executed  the  above  instru- 
ment, and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same  as  such  trustee  as 
aforesaid. 

JOHN  A.  FOSTER, 

Commissioner  of  Deeds, 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

City  and  County  of  Neio  York,  )     * 

I,  Richard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York, 
and  also  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  for  said  city  and  county,  do  here- 
by certify  that  John  A.  Foster,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  cer- 
tificate of  the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  annexed  instrument 
and  thereon  written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking  such  proof  or  acknowl- 
edgment, a  commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city  and  county,  dwelling 
in  the  said  city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and  duly  authorized  to  take 
the  same  ;  and,  further,  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  hand- 
writing of  such  commissioner,  and  verily  believe  that  the  signature  to 
the  said  certificate  of  proof  or  acknowledgment  is  genuine. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
r        -,  seal  of  the  said  court  and  countv,  the  third  day  of  July^  1857. 
L^-  ^'J  RICHARD  B.  CONNOLLY,  Clerk, 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  the  19th 
day  of  November,  1857,  at  12  o'clock  m. 

Examined  by—  STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk, 

Queens  County,  ss. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby 
certify  that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  as  the 
same  is  recorded  in  my  office,  in  Liber  156  of  Deeds,  page  411,  &c., 
on  the,  and  that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof, 
and  of  the  whole  of  such  original. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
r      ,  1  seal  of  the  said  county,  this  15th  day  of  February,  1858. 
L^'  ^--J  STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk, 


Q. 


This  indenture,  made  the  16th  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1857,  be- 
tween George  Irving  of  Little  Neck,  in  the  county  of  Queens,  and 
State  of  New  York,  and  Robertine,  his  wife,  parties  of  the  first  part, 


APPENDIX.  355 

and  the  United  States  of  America,  parties  of  the  second  part,  wit- 
nesseth  :  That  the  parties  of  the  first  part,  for  and  in  consideration  of 
the  sum  of  $200,000,  lawful  money  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
to  them  in  hand  paid  by  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  at  or 
before  the  ensealing  and  delivery  of  these  presents,  the  receipt 
whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged,  and  the  said  parties,  of  the  second 
part  forever  released  and  discharged  from  the  same,  by  these  presents 
have  granted,  bargained,  sold,  aliened,  remised,  released,  conveyed 
and  confirmed,  and  by  these  presents  do  grant,  bargain,  sell,  alien, 
remise,  release,  convey  and  confirm  unto  the  said  parties  of  the  second 
part,  and  to  them  and  their  assigns  forever,  all  that  farm  or  tract  of 
land,  part  of  a  neck  of  land,  called  ^'T  home's  or  Willett's  Neck,"  sit- 
uate, lying  and  being  in  the  town  of  Flushing,  county  of  Queens, 
and  State  of  New  York,  bounded  and  containing  as  follows  :  Begin- 
ning at  a  stake  on  the  northeasterly  side  of  the  bridge  across  the 
creek,  in  the  centre  of  Mr.  Wissmann'snew  private  road  leading  from 
the  highway  to  his  house,  being  the  most  southerly  corner  of  Mr. 
Day's  land,  and  running  thence  along  the  centre  of  said  road  N. 
37°  14'  E.  five  hundred  and  twenty  feet;  thence  N.  26°  29',  E.  one 
hundred  and  forty  feet ;  thence  N.  22°  33',  W.  seven  hundred  and 
thirteen  feet  and  six  inches  ;  thence  N.  74°  36',  W.  five  hundred  and 
twenty-one  feet  and  seven  inches  ;  thence  N.  19°  10',  E.  thirty-one 
feet  and  six  inches ;  thence  N.  70°  50',  W.  fifty  feet ;  thence  S.  19° 
10',  W.  forty-one  feet ;  thence  N.  74°_  36',  W.  to  the  East  river  ; 
thence  following  the  windings  of  the  river  northerly  and  easterly  to 
Little  Neck  bay  ;  thence  along  the  bay  southerly  and  westerly  to  the 
centre  of  the  creek  above  mentioned  ;  and  thence  following  the  centre 
of  the  said  creek  as  it  winds  and  turns  in  a  northerly  direction  to  the 
point  of  beginnin — containing  about  one  hundred  and  ten  acres  of 
laud,  be  the  same  more  ^or  less :  together  with  a  right  of  way  over 
the  road  which  crosses  the  said  brige  and  the  causeway  leading  to 
the  public  highway. 

Together  wuth  all  and  singular  the  tenements,  hereditaments,  and 
appurtenances  thereunto  belonging  or  in  any  wise  appertaining,  and 
the  reversion  and  reversions,  remainder  and  remainders,  rents,  issues, 
and  profits  thereof.  And  also  all  the  estate,  right,  title,  interest, 
dower, "right  of  dower,  property,  possession,  claim,  and  demand  what- 
soever, as  well  in  law  as  in  equity,  of  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part, 
of,  in,  and  to  the  same,  and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the 
appurtenances :  To  have  and  to  hold  the  above  granted,  bargained, 
and  described  premises,  with  the  appurtenances,  unto  the  said  parties 
of  the  second  part,  and  to  their  assigns,  to  their  own  proper  use,  bene- 
fit, and  behoof  forever  ;  subject  to  a  mortgage  made  by  said  George 
Irving  to  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankensteyn,  trustee  of  Celine  Frances, 
wife  of  Frederick  Wissmann,  to  secure  the  principal  sum  of  eighty- 
five  thousand  dollars,  with  interest,  which  principal  sum  and  arrears 
of  interest  forms  part  of  the  consideration  of  this  conveyance,  and  the 
payment  thereof  is  assumed  by  said  parties  of  the  second  part  hereto. 

And  the  said  George  Irving,  for  himself,  his  heirs,  executors,  and 
administrators,  doth  hereby  covenant,  grant,  and  agree  to  and  with 


356  APPENDIX. 

the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  and  their  assigns,  that  the  said 
George  Irving,  at  the  time  of  the  sealing  and  delivery  of  these 
presents,  is  lawfully  seized  in  his  own  right  of  a  good,  absolute,  and 
indefeasible  estate  of  inheritance,  in  fee  simple,  of  and  in  all  and  sin- 
gular the  above  granted,  bargained,  and  described  premises,  with  the 
appurtenances,  except  as  aforesaid,  and  hath  good  right,  full  power, 
and  lawful  authority  to  grant,  bargain,  sell,  and  convey  the  same  in 
manner  and  form  aforesaid  ;  and  that  the  said  parties  of  the  second 
part  and  their  assigns  shall  and  may,  at  all  times  hereafter,  peace- 
ably and  quietly  have,  hold,  use,  occupy,  possess,,  and  enjoy  the  above 
granted  premises,  and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the  appur- 
tenances, without  any  let,  suit,  trouble,  molestation,  eviction  or  dis- 
turbance of  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  their  heirs  or  assigns,  or 
of  any  other  person  or  persons  lawfully  claiming  or  to  claim  the  same  ; 
and  that  the  same  now  are  free,  clear,  discharged,  and  unencumbered, 
of  and  from  all  former  and  other  grants,  titles,  charges,  estates,  judg- 
ments, taxes,  assessments,  and  encumbrances,  of  what  nature  or 
kind  soever,  except  as  aforesaid.  And  also  that  the  said  parties  of 
the  first  part  and  their  heirs,  and  all  and  every  person  or  persons 
whomsoever,  lawfully  or  equitably  deriving  any  estate,  right,  title  or 
interest  of,  in,  or  to  the  hereinbefore  granted  premises,  by^  from,  under, 
or  in  trust  for  them,  shall  and  will,  at  any  time  or  times  hereafter, 
upon  the  reasonable  request,  and  at  the  proper  costs  and  charges  in 
the  law,  of  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  and  their  assigns, 
make,  do,  and  execute,  or  cause  or  procure  to  be  made,  done,  and 
executed,  all  and  every  such  further  and  other  lawful  and  reasonable 
acts,  conveyances,  and  assurances  in  the  law,  for  the  better  and  more 
effectually  vesting  and  confirming  the  premises  hereby  intended  to  be 
granted  in  and  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  and  their  assigns 
forever,  as  by  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  and  their  assigns,  or 
counsel  learned  in  the  law,  shall  be  reasonably  devised,  advised,  or 
required.  And  the  said  George  Irving  the  above  described  and  hereby 
granted  and  released  premises,  and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof, 
with  the  appurtenances,  unto  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  and 
their  assigns,  against  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  and  their  heirs, 
and  against  all  and  every  person  and  persons  whomsoever,  lawfully 
claiming  or  to  claim  the  same,  shall  and  will  warrant,  and  by  these 
presents  forever  defend. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  said  [parties  of  the  first  part  have  hereunto 
set  their  hands  and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

GEORGE  IRVING,  [l.  s.] 

ROBERTINE  IRVING,     \l.  s.] 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of— 

H.  H.  Rice. 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss. 

On  the  16th  day  of  May  personally,  before  me,  came  George  Irving 
and  Robertine,  his  wife,  known  to  me  to  be  the  same  persons  described 
in  and  who  executed  the  foregoing  instrument,  and  acknowledged  that 
they  executed  the  same  ;  and  the  said  Robertine,  on  a  private  exami- 


APPENDIX.  357 

nation  by  me,  made  apart  from  her  husband,  acknowledged  that  she 
executed  the  same  freely,  and  without  any  fear  or  compulsion  of  her 
said  husband. 

H.  H.  RICE, 
Commissioner  of  Deeds, 

State  of  New  York,  > 

City  and  County  of  New  YorJcj  )     * 

I,  Richard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York, 
and  also  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  for  said  city  and  county,  do  hereby 
certify  that  H.  H.  Rice,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  certificate  of 
the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  annexed  instrument,  and  thereon 
written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking  such  proof  or  acknowledgment,  a 
commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city  and  coanty,  dwelling  in  the  said 
city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and  duly  authorized  to  take  the  same  ; 
and  further,  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  of  such 
commissioner,  and  verily  believe  that  the  signature  to  the  said  certifi- 
cate of  proof  or  acknowledgment  is  genuine. 

In  testimony  whereof^  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
r  -,  seal  of  the  said  court  and  county,  the  20th  day  of  November, 
^^'^'^  1857. 

RICHARD  B.  CONNOLLY,  Clerk. 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original  the  21st  day 
of  November,  1857,  at  9  o'clock  a.  m. 
Examined  by — 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 

Queens  County,  ss. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby 
certify  that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  as  the 
same  is  recorded  in  my  office,  in  Liber  156  of  Deeds,  page  422,  &c., 
and  that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof,  and  of  the 
whole  of  such  original. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
[l.  s.]    seal  of  the  said  county,  this  15th  day  of  February,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 

The  deed  bore  the  following  endorsement  upon  its  back : 

Willett's  Neck,  New  York.  [No.  3. 

GEORGE  IRVING  AND  WIFE  to  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Deed, 

War  Department,  July  8,  1857. 
The  Attorney  General  having  certified  that  the  within  deed  vests  a 
valid  title  in  the  United  States,  it  is  hereby  approved.     A  requisition 


358  APPENDIX. 

will,  therefore,  be  issued  for  the  first  payment,  viz  :  one  hundred  and 
fifteen  thousand  dollars. 

J.  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War, 

Eec'd  July  8,  185 T.  Exgineer  Department. 

(S.  W.  1775.) 

(3)  Kecorded  in  Liber  156,  page  422,  (Src— S.  H.  D.  M. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  an  endorsement  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  on  the  original  deed  from  George  Irving  and  wife  to  the  United 
States,  filed  in  this  office. 

H.  G.  WEIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


K. 

This  indenture,  made  the  12th  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1857, 
between  George  Irving,  of  Little  Neck,  in  the  county  of  Queens  and 
State  of  New  York,  party  of  the  first  part,  and  Cornelius  F.  Van 
Blankenstyne,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  trustee  of  certain  property  and 
efiects  for  the  benefit  of  Celine  Frances,  wife  of  Frederick  Wissmann, 
party  of  the  second  part ;  whereas  the  said  George  Irving  is  justly, 
indebted  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  in  the  sum  of  §15,502  61, 
lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  secured  to  be  paid  by  his  certain 
bond  or  obligation  bearing  even  date  with  these  presents  in  the  penal 
sum  of  $31,005  22,  lawful  money  as  aforesaid,  conditioned  for  the 
payment  of  the  said  first  mentioned  sum  of  $15,502  61  on  the  10th 
day  of  July,  which  will  be  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1857  ;  which  said 
bond  also  contains  an  agreement  that,  shoukl  any  default  be  made  in 
the  payment  of  the  said  interest,  or  of  any  part  thereof,  on  any  day 
whereon  the  same  is  made  payable,  as  above  expressed,  and  should 
the  same  remain  unpaid  and  in  arrear  for  the  space  of  days, 

then  and  from  thenceforth,  that  is  to  say,  after  the  lapse  of  the  said 
days,  the  aforesaid  principal  sum  of  $15,502  61,  witli  all  ar- 
rearage of  interest  thereon,  shall,  at  the  option  of  the  said  party  of 
the  second  part,  his  legal  representatives,  become  and  be  due  and  pay- 
able immediately  thereafter,  although  the  period  above  limited  for  the 
payment  thereof  may  not  then  have  expired,  anything  in  the  said 
bond  contained  to  the  contrary  thereof  in  anywise  notwithstanding, 
as  by  the  said  bond  or  obligation,  and  the  said  agreement  therein 
contained,  and  the  condition  thereof,  reference  being  thereunto  had, 
may  more  fully  appear.  Now,  this  indenture  witnesseth,  that  the 
said  party  of  the  first  part,  for  the  better  securing  the  payment  of 
tlie  said  sum  of  money  mentioned  in  the  condition  of  the  said  bond 
or  obligation,  with  interest  thereon,  according  to  the  true  intent  and 


APPENDIX.  359 

meaning  thereof,  and  also  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  one 
dollar  to  them  in  hand  paid  hy  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  at 
or  before  the  ensealing  and  delivery  of  these  presents,  the  receipt 
whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged,  hath  granted,  bargained,  sold, 
aliened,  released,  conveyed  and  confirmed,  and  by  these  presents  doth 
grant,  bargain,  sell,  alien,  release,  convey  and  confirm  unto  the  said 
party  of  the  second  part,  and  to  his  successors  and  assigns  forever, 
all  that  certain  farm,  tract  or  parcel  of  land  situate,  lying  and  being 
near  a  place  called  ^^  Willett's  Neck,"  in  the  county  of  Queens  and 
State  of  New  York,  bounded  and  described  as  follows,  that  is  to  say : 
Begining  at  a  stake  in  the  northeasterly  side  of  the  bridge  across  the 
creek,  in  the  centre  of  Mr.  Wissmann's  new  private  road  leading  from 
the  highway  to  his  house,  being  the  most  southerly  corner  of  Mr. 
Day's  land,  and  running  thence  along  the  centre  of  said  road  north 
thirty-seven  degrees  fourteen  minutes,  east  five  hundred  and  twenty 
feet ;  thence  north  twenty-six  degrees  twenty-nine  minutes,  east  one 
hundred  and  forty  feet ;  thence  north  twenty-two  degrees  thirty-three 
minutes,  west  seven  hundred  and  thirteen  feet  six  inches  ;  thence 
north  seventy-four  degrees  thirty-six  minutes  west,  along  Mr.  Day's 
land  to  the  East  river  ;  thence  following  the  windings  of  the  river 
northerly  and  easterly  to  Little  Neck  bay  ;  thence  along  the  bay 
southerly  and  westerly  to  the  centre  of  the  creek  above  mentioned,  and 
thence  following  the  centre  of  the  said  creek  as  it  winds  and  turns  in 
a  northerly  direction  to  the  point  of  beginning,  containing  about  one 
hundred  and  ten  acres,  be  the  game  more  or  less  ;  together  with  a 
right  of  way  over  the  road  which  crosses  the  said  bridge  and  causeway 
running  to  the  public  highway,  being  the  same  premises  this  day 
conveyed  by  the  said  party  of  the  second  part.  Together  with  the 
said  Frederick  Wissmann  and  Celine  Frances,  his  wife,  to  the  party 
of  the  first  part,  by  an  indenture  bearing  even  date  herewith,  and 
these  presents  being  executed  and  delivered  to  secure  the  payment  of 
a  portion  of  the  purchase  or  consideration  money  expressed  in  said 
deed.  Together  with  all  and  singular  the  tenements,  hereditaments 
and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging,  or  in  anywise  appertaining, 
and  the  reversion  and  reversions,  remainder  and  remainders,  rents, 
issues  and  profits  thereof.  And  also  all  the  estate,  rights  title,  in- 
terest, property,  possession,  claim  and  demand  whatsoever,  as  well  in 
law  as  in  equity,  of  the  said  party  of  the  first  part,  of,  in  and  to  the 
same,  and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof  with  the  appurtenances.  To 
have  and  to  hold  the  above  granted  and  described  premises^  with  the 
appurtenances,  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  his  successors 
?nd  assigns,  to  his  and  their  own  proper  use,  benefit  and  behoof  for- 
ever; provided  always,  and  these  presents  are  upon  this  express  con- 
dition, that  if  the  said  party  of  the  first  part,  his  executors,  adminis- 
trators, or  assigns  shall  well  and  truly  pay  unto  the  said  party  of 
the  second  part,  his  successors  or  assigns,  the  said  sum  of  money 
mentioned  in  the  condition  of  the  said  bond  or  obligation  and  the 
interest  thereon,  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  mentioned  in  the 
said  condition  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  thereof, 
that  then  these  presents,  and  the  estate  hereby  granted,  shall  cease, 
determine  and   be  void.     And  the   said  G-eorge  Irving   doth   cove- 


360  APPENDIX. 

nant  and  agree  to  pay  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  his 
successors  or  assigns,  the  said  sum  of  money  and  interest  as  men- 
tioned above  and  expressed  in  the  condition  of  the  said  bond.  And 
if  default  shall  be  made  in  the  payment  of  the  said  sum  of  money 
above  mentioned,  or  the  interest  that  may  grow  due  thereon,  or  of  any 
part  thereof,  that  then  and  from  thenceforth  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the 
said  party  of  the  second  part,  his  successors  or  assigns,  to  enter  into 
and  upon  all  and  singular  the  premises  hereby  granted  or  intended  so 
to  be,  and  to  sell  and  dispose  of  the  same,  and  all  benefit  and  equity 
of  redemption  of  the  said  party  of  the  first  part,  his  heirs  or  assigns 
therein,  at  public  auction,  according  to  the  act  in  such  case  made  and 
provided  ;  and  as  the  attorney  of  the  said  party  of  the  first  part  for 
that  purpose,  by  these  presents  duly  authorized,  constituted,  and  ap- 
pointed, to  make  and  deliver  to  the  purchaser  or  purchasers  thereof  a 
good  and  sufiicient  deed  or  deeds  of  conveyance,  in  the  law,  for  the 
same  in  fee  simple.  And  out  of  the  money  arising  from  such  sale,  to 
retain  the  principal  and  interest,  which  shall  then  be  due  on  the  said 
bond  or  obligation,  together  with  the  costs  and  charges  of  advertise- 
ment and  sale  of  the  same  premises,  rendering  the  overplus  of  the 
purchase  money  (if  any  there  shall  be)  unto  the  said  George  Irving, 
his  heirs  and  assigns,  which  sale,  so  to  be  made,  shall  forever  be  a 
perpetual  bar,  both  in  law  and  equity,  against  the  said  party  of  the 
first  i^art,  his  legal  representatives  and  assigns,  and  all  other  persons 
claiming  or  to  claim  the  premises,  or  any  part  thereof,  by,  from,  or 
under  them,  or  any  of  them. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  party  of  the  first  part  hath  hereunto  set  his 
hand  and  seal  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

GEOKGE  IRVING,  [l.  s.] 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — 
W.  C.  Wetmore. 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss. 

On  this  2d  day  of  July,  A.  D.  185*7,  before  me,  came  William  C. 
Wetmore,  the  subscribing  witness  to  the  foregoing  indenture,  to  me 
known,  who,  being  by  me  duly  affirmed,  did  declare  and  say,  that  he 
resides  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  that  he  is  acquainted  with  George 
Irving,  and  knows  him  to  be  the  same  person  described  in  and  who 
executed  the  foregoing  indenture  ;  that  he  acknowledged  the  same  in 
his  presence,  and  that  the  said  Wetmore  thereupon  subscribed  his  name 
as  a  witness  thereto. 

JAMES  P.  HYATT, 

Commissioner  of  Deeds, 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

City  arid  County  of  New  York,  y 

I,  Richard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York, 
and  also  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  for  said  city  and  county,  do  hereby 
certify  tliat  James  P.  Hyatt,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  tlie  certifi- 
cate of  the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  annexed  instrument,  and 


APPENDIX.  361 

tliereon  written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking  such  proof  or  acknowledg- 
ment, a  commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city  and  county,  dwelling  in 
the  said  city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and  duly  authorized  to  tako 
the  same  ;  and  further,  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  hand 
writing  of  such  commissioner,  and  verily  believe  that  the  signature  to 
the  said  certificate  of  proof  or  acknowledgment  is  genuine. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed 

r        -|     the  seal  of  the  said  court  and  county,  the  3d  day  of  July, 

L^-  ^-J     1857. 

EICH'D  B.  CONNOLLY,  Clerk, 

Eentred  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original  on  the  6th 
the  of  July^  1857,  at  5  o'clock  p.  m. 
Examined  by — 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerh. 

The  foregoing  mortgage  cancelled  of  record  July  10,  1857,  for  cer- 
tificate of  satisfaction. — (See  Liber  8  of  Discharges,  page  193,  &c.,  and 
on  file.) 

S.  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 

Queens  County,  ss, 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  thecounty  of  Queens,  do  hereby  cer- 
tify that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original  as  the  same  is 
recorded  in  my  office  in  Liber  94  of  Mortgages,  page  147,  &c.;  and 
that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof,  and  the  whole 
of  such  original, 
r  -|  In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
L  •    'J    affixed  the  seal  ofsaid  county,  this  22d  day  of  February,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 


S. 

Attorney  General's  Office, 

July  7,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  commu- 
nication of  the  6th  instant,  transmitting  for  my  consideration  a  deed 
from  George  Irving  and  wife  to  the  United  States  of  a  site  for  a  for- 
tification at  Willet's  Neck,  in  Flushing,  New  York,  and  papers  rela- 
ting to  the  title  thereto. 

I  have  examined  these  papers,  and  certify  that  the  said  deed  vests  in 
the  United  States  valid  title  to  the  premises  therein  described. 

No  sufficient  evidence  that  there  are  no  outstanding  taxes  or  assess- 
ments which  remain  unpaid,  and  a  lien  upon  the  land,  has  been  pro- 
duced. Before  the  actual  payment  of  the  purchase  money  such  evi- 
dence of  a  satisfactory  kind  should  be  produced  to  the  officer  making 
payment.     This  evidence  should  be  filed  with  the  papers  in  the  case. 


362  APPENDIX. 

An  official  certificate  from  the  United  States  district   attorney,  or 
the  treasurer  of  Queens  county,  would  be  suitable   evidence  to  prove 
that  there  are  no  outstanding  unpaid  taxes. 
Very  respectfully, 


Eon.  John  B.  Floyd, 

Secretary  of  War, 


J.  S.  BLAOK. 


[Telegraphic  Message.] 


^^New  York,  July  8. 
^'  The  taxes  on  Willett's  Neck  property  have  been  secured  and  can  be 

considered  removed. 

^^  JOHN  McKEON, 
^^ District  Attorney  United  States, 
''  J.  S.  Black, 

^^ Attorney  General ,  Washington,^ ^ 

Engineer  Department, 

April  12,  1858. 

I  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original,  now  on 
file  in  this  office,  of  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  and  of  the 
telegraphic  communication  which  is  attached  thereto. 

H.   G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


T. 

New  York,  April  24,  1857. 

Gentlemen  :  In  answer  to  your  inquiries  as  to  the  value  of  the  piece 
of  land  situate  on  the  East  river,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  known  as 
Willett's  Point,  I  can  say  that  I  own  property  in  that  vicinity,  and 
am  acquainted  with  the  locality. 

A  number  of  our  leading  merchants,  including  Mr.  Cryder,  of  the 
firm  of  Wetmore  &  Cryder ;  Mr.  Stewart  Brown,  of  the  firm  of 
Brown,  Brothers  &  Co.;  Mr.  John  Hagerty,  and  Mr.  Henry  Grinnell, 
have  erected  country  seats  near  that  place. 

This  property,  (Willett's  Point,)  is  well  adapted  for  like  use  ;  and, 
in  my  judgment,  is  equal,  if  not  more  valuable  than  that  owned  by 
either  of  those  gentlemen. 

It  is  proper  for  me  to  add,  that  the  location  of  the  land  in  question 
is  most  beautiful — being  high,  and  commanding  a  most  extensive 
view  both  up  and  down  the  East  river  ;  and  all  the  property  in  the 
neigliborhood  has  been  improved  by  the  erection  of  dwellings  and 
villas  by  gentlemen  of  fortune,  and  the  lands  highly  cultivated. 

With  great  respect,  I  remain  yours  truly, 

A.  H.  MICKLE. 

Augustus  Schell,  Esq. ,  and  Isaac  V.  Fowler,  Esq. 


APPENDIX.  363 

Engixeer  Department^ 

February  27,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  original,  filed  in  tliis  office. 

H.  G.  WEIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers ^  in  charge. 


No.   1. 

[Received  March  28,  1S57. — Private.J 


Kett  York,  March  27,  1857. 
My  Dear  General  :  Can  you  not  indicate  the  form  of  law  you  wish 
to  have  passed,  or  refer  me  to  ^ome  precedent — I  mean,  for  condemna- 
tion ? 

I  am  quite  ignorant  on  the  subject.  I  thought  the  right  was  abso- 
lute in  the  general  government ;  if  so,  what  has  the  State  government 
to  do  with  it  ? 

I  feel  confident,  from  all  I  can  gather,  as  to  the  sense  of  the  value 
of  this  property  which  most  people  who  are  acquainted  with  it  have, 
that  any  jury  we  can  appoint^  or  have  appointed,  will  award  Wissmann 
more  thsiu  $100,000  ;  and  that  this  property  might,  possibly,  be  secured 
for  that  sum^  for  I  imagine  the  Irving  purchase  would  not  stand  in 
the  way. 

Please  address  me  at  ^^  Congress  Hall,  Albany." 
Respectfully,  your  most  obedient, 

J.  G.  BARNARD, 

Brevet  Major  Eng  s. 

P.  S. — If  you  have  any  suggestions  or  information  to  give  as  to  the 
law,  please  write  immediately. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original  now  on  file  in  this 
office. 

H.  G.   WRIGHT, 

Capt.  of  Eng's,  in  charge. 


No.   2. 

Engineer  Department, 

Washington  April  28,  1857. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  there  has  just  been  received,  for 

file  in  this  office,  the  proposition  of  Mr.  George  Irving,  made  to  you 

on  the  3d  instant,   for  the  sale  to  the  United  States   of  Willet's  (or 

Wilkins')  Neck,  (exclusive  of  2G  acres  belonging  to  Mr.  Day,)  situated 


364  APPENDIX. 

on  Long  Island,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  for  the  sum  of  §200,000, 
with  the  endorsement  thereon  of  your  acceptance  of  the  offer,  provided 
the  quantity  of  land  be  about  as  represented,  to  wit :  from  "one  hun- 
dred to  one  hundred  and  thirty  acres,"  and  the  title  shall  prove  to  be 
good. 

Supposing  it  may  not  have  been  brought  to  your  notice  that  the 
above  sum  exceeds  the  amount  appropriated  by  Congress,  I  take  leave 
to  cite  the  words  of  the  grant,  which  are  these : 

"  For  the  commencement  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler ,  New  York, 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars." 

Should  the  deficient  appropriation  present  no  obstacle  to  the  con- 
summation of  the  bargain,  I  have  to  request  that  the  proper  law  officer 
be  requested  to  direct  as  to  the  necessary  papers,  including  a  mortgage, 
to  cover  the  deficit. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOS.  G.  TOTTEN, 
Brevet  Brig.  Gen.  and  Captain  of  Eng's, 

Engineer  Department,  February  25,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  records  of  this  office. 

H.  a.  WEIGHT, 

Ca'pt.  of  Eng's,  in  charge. 


No.  3. 

War  Department, 
Washington,  April  28,  1857. 
Sir:    The  provisions  of  the  law  to  which  you  allude  have  not 
escaped  my  close  observation.     The  difficulty  you  suggest  is  fully  pro- 
vided for  by  the  terms  of  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of  the  property. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  B.  FLOYD, 

Secretary  of  War, 
Brevet  Brig.  Gen.  Jos.  G.  Totten, 

Chief  Engineer. 

Engineer  Department, 

Februarg  27,  1858. 

A  true  copy  from  the  original,  filed  in  this  office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


APPENDIX.  365 

No.  4. 

AN  ACT  giving  the  consent  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  the  purchase  by  the  United  States 
,   of  certain  property  in  the  counties  of  Queens  and  Richmond,  and  to  cede  to  the  United 
States  jurisdiction  thereof. — Passed  April  15,  1857. 

The  people  of  the  State  of  New  Yorh^  represented  in  senate  and  assem- 
bly, do  enact  asfolloios : 

Section  1.  The  consent  of  the  State  of  New  York  is  hereby  given  to 
the  purchase  by  the  United  States  of  all  and  each  and  every  tract  of 
land  on  the  island  of  Long  Island,  in  the  county  of  Queens,  in  a  di- 
rection opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  East  river,  that  may  be  acquired  by 
the  United  States,  and  that  shall  be  necessary,  under  the  appropria- 
tion by  Congress  of  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  for 
the  commencement  of  a  fort  opposite  Fort  Schuyler,  New  York,  for 
the  purpose  of  building  and  maintaining  thereon  forts,  magazines, 
dock  yards,  wharves,  and  other  necessary  structures,  with  their  ap- 
pendages ;  and  over  all  the  contiguous  shores,  flats,  and  waters  with- 
in four  hundred  feet  from  low  water  mark  ;  and  in  case  the  owners  of 
the  said  land  shall  not  consent  to  sell  the  same  on  such  terms  as  the 
United  States  may  deem  equitable,  the  consent  of  the  legislature  is 
hereby  given  to  the  United  States  taking  the  same,  for  the  purpose 
aforesaid,  upon  just  and  full  compensation  being  provided  for  the 
owners  thereof,  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  fourth  article  and 
second  title  of  the  ninth  chapter  and  third  part  of  the  Kevised 
Statutes  ;  and  all  right,  title,  and  claim  which  this  State  may  have  to 
or  in  the  premises  aforesaid,  is  hereby  granted  to  the  United  States, 
subject  to  the  restrictions  hereinafter  mentioned. 

Sec.  2.  The  consent  of  the  State  of  New  York  is  also  hereby  given 
to  the  purchase  by  the  United  States  of  all,  each,  and  every  portion 
of  that  tract  of  land,  on  Staten  Island,  in  the  county  of  Richmond, 
New  York,  now  owned  by  William  H.  Aspinwall,  who  is  to  convey 
the  same  to  the  United  States  ;  said  land  lying  mainly  between  the 
land  of  the  United  States  and  New  York  avenue,  for  the  purpose  of 
building  and  maintaining  thereon  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  and  other 
necessary  structures,  with  their  appendages. 

Sec.  3.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  and  over  the 
said  property  referred  to  and  set  forth  in  the  first  and  second  sections 
hereof,  shall  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  ceded  to  the  United  States, 
subject  to  the  restrictions  hereinafter  mentioned. 

Sec.  4.  The  said  consent  is  given  and  the  said  jurisdiction  ceded 
upon  the  express  condition  that  the  State  of  New  York  shall  retain  a 
concurrent  jurisdiction  with  the  United  States  in  and  over  the  said 
property,  so  far  as  that  all  civil,  criminal,  and  other  process,  which 
may  issue  under  the  laws  or  authority  of  the  State  of  New  York^  may 
be  executed  thereon,  in  the  same  way  and  manner  as  if  such  consent 
had  not  been  given  or  jurisdiction  ceded,  except  so  far  as  such  process 
may  affect  the  real  or  personal  property  of  the  United  States. 

Sec.  5.  The  jurisdiction  hereby  ceded  shall  not  vest,  in  any  respect, 
to  any  portion  of  said  property,  until  the  United  States  shall  have 
acquired  the  title  thereto,  by  purchase  or  otherwise. 

Sec.  G.  The  said  property,  when  acquired  by  the  United  States, 


366  >.  APPENDIX. 

shall  be  and  continue  forever  thereafter  exonerated  and  discharged 
from  all  taxes,  assessments,  and  other  charges  which  may  he  levied 
or  imposed  under  the  authority  of  this  State ;  hut  the  jurisdiction 
hereby  ceded  and  the  exemption  from  taxation  hereby  granted  shall 
continue,  in  respect  to  said  property  and  to  each  portion  thereof,  so 
long  as  the  same  shall  remain  the  property  of  the  tlnited  States,  and 
be  used  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  and  no  longer. 
Sec.  7.  This  act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 

State  of  New  York,  Secretary's  office, 

I  have  compared  the  preceding  with  the  original  law  on  file  in  this 
office,  and  do  hereby  certify  that  the  same  is  a  correct  transcript  there- 
from, and  of  the  whole  of  said  original  law. 

Given  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  office,  at  the  city  of  Albany,  this 
r  -|  twenty-fourth  day  of  April,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
■-  '    ■-'  hundred  and  fifty-seven. 

N.  P.  STANTON, 
Deputy  Secretary  of  State, 


No.  5. 

Queens  County,  Long  Island, 

Articles  of  agreement  made  hetiveen  Frederick  Wissmann  and  Celine 
Frances^  his  ivife,  of  the  town  of  Flushing y  and  George  Irving j  of  the 
town  of  North  Hempstead  : 

In  consideration  of  the  following_,  Frederick  Wissmann  and  his 
wife  hereby  agree  to  sell  and  convey  to  George  Irving  the  farm  situ- 
ated on  Willetts'  Neck,  bounded  as  follows  :  Beginning  at  the  south- 
east corner  of  land  owned  by  Henry  Day,  and  running  thence  in  a 
southeasterly  course,  by  the  middle  of  the  creek,  to  Little  Neck  bay  ; 
thence  in  a  northerly  course,  by  Little  Neck  bay,  to  Long  Island 
Sound  ;  thence,  by  Long  Island  Sound  and  Little  Bay  side,  to  the 
northwest  corner  of  land  owned  by  Henry  Day  ;  thence,  by  the  north- 
erly and  easterly  boundaries  of  Henry  Day's  lands,  to  the  point  of 
beginning. 

The  price  of  the  above  described  property,  including  buildings  and 
improvements  of  all  descriptions,  is  one  hundred  and  thirty  tliousand 
dollars,  payable  as  follows  :  ten  thousand  dollars  on  or  before  the 
(28th)  twenty-eighth  day  of  April,  1857  ;  thirty-five  thousand  dollars 
on  or  before  the  (10th)  tenth  day  of  July,  1857.  Upon  the  last  men- 
tioned payment,  Frederick  Wissman  and  his  wife  engage  to  convey 
to  George  Irving,  by  a  good,  a  legal  warantee  deed,  the  above  de- 
scribed pro])erty.  The  balance  of  the  purchase  money,  namely, 
eighty-five  thousand  dollars,  is  to  remain  on  bond  and  mortgage  for  the 
term  of  five  years  from  the  fifteenth  (15th)  day  of  April,  1857,  at  seven 
l)ercent.;  interest  payable  semi-annually.  And  it  is  further  agreed, 
that  the  said  Frederick  Wissmann  and  his  wife  shall  execute  a  release 
of  the  property  from  the  above  mortgage  whenever  rccjuired  to  do  so 


APPENDIX.  367 

by  George  Irving,  or  his  assigns,  on  the  payment,  in  full,  of  the 
principal  and  interest  due  thereon. 

The  property,  when  conveyed,  is  to  he  free  from  all  incumbrances 
and  liens  of  every  description  ;  it  being  understood,  however,  that  the 
reservation  as  to  a  cemetery  is  to  remain  as  in  existing  deeds.  And 
it  is  further  understood,  that  a  mortgage  for  eighteen  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  ($18,750,)  now  existing  on  the  property,  is 
to  remain  at  the  option  of  Mr.  Wissmann,  and  is  to  form  part  of  the 
eighty-five  thousand  dollars  that  is  to  remain  on  mortgage. 

It  is  further  agreed,  that  if  the  said  George  Irving  fails  to  pay  the 
before  mentioned  sum  often  thousand  dollars  by  the  twenty- eigtJi  day 
of  April,  1857,  then  this  agreement  is  void  ;  and  further,  that  if  the 
said  George  Irving  fails  to  pay  the  before  mentioned  sum  of  thirty- 
five  thousand  by  the  tenth  (10th)  day  of  July,  1857,  then 

this  contract  is  void  ;  and  the  sum  of  ten  thousand  dollars,  previously 
paid,  shall  be  retained  by  the  said  Wissmann  to  cover  all  and  every 
damage  sustained  by  him  through  the  non-fulfilment  of  this  agree- 
ment. 

In  consideration  of  the  above  conditions  of  this  mutual  agreement, 
George  Irving  hereby  agrees  to  purchase  the  property  above  described, 
at  the  price  named  and  on  the  terms  specified,  and  to  fulfil  all  the 
stipulations  of  this  agreement,  or  abide  by  them. 

Dated  the  15th  day  of  April,  1857,  and  executed  in  duplicate  by 

FREDERICK  WISSMANN.  [l.  s.] 
CELINE  F.  WISSMANN, 

By  her  husband. 
GEORGE  IRVING.  [l.  s.] 

Witnessed  by — 

P.  M.  Wetmore. 

We  hereby  authorize  and  request  Mr.  Cornelius  J.  Van  Blank en- 
steyn,  trustee  for  Celine  Frances  Wissmann,  to  confirm  and  carry  out 
the  annexed  agreement,  and  for  that  purpose  to  execute  all  necessary 
papers  ;  and  we  hereby  agree  to  give  possession  of  the  property  de- 
scribed in  the  annexed  agreement  to  George  Irving  on  the  10th  day 
of  July  next,  with  the  exception  of  the  dwelling-house,  barn,  lawn, 
and  garden,  of  which  we  are  to  retain  the  use  until  November  1,  1857^ 
reserving  also  to  our  use  the  standing  crops  of  the  farm. 

FREDERICK  WISSMANN.  [l.  s.l 
.   CELINE  F.  WISSMANN, 

By  her  husband. 
Witness  present — 

P.  M.  Wetmore. 
April  15,  1857. 

Received  of  George  Irving,  this  fifteenth  (15th)  day  of  April,  1857, 
one  thousand  dollars  on  account  of  the  first  payment,  due  April  28, 
1857,  and  also  received  a  check  payable  to  the  order  of  George  Irving, 
and  endorsed  by  him,  for  nine  thousand  dollars,  which,  when  paid, 
will  be  in  full  for  the  payment  due  April  28,  1857^  on  the  within 
contract.  It  is  also  agreed  that  if  this  check  should  not  be  paid  at 
maturity,  then  the  one  thousand  dollars  already  paid  shall  be  forfeited. 

FREDERICK  WISSMANN. 


368  APPENDIX. 

State  of  New  York,  } 
County  of  Queens,     J 

On  this  15th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1857,  personally  came  before  me 
P.  M.  Wetmore,  subscribing  witness  to  the  within  instrument,  to  me 
known,  who,  being  by  me  duly  sworn,  did  depose  and  say,  that  he 
resides  in  the  city  of  New  York,  No.  60  Merchants'  Exchange ;  that 
he  knew  George  Irving  and  Frederick  Wissmann,  the  individuals 
described  in  and  who  executed  the  within  instrument ;  that  he  was 
present  and  saw  the  said  George  Irving  and  Frederick  Wissman  exe- 
cute the  same ;  that  the  said  Wissmann  and  Irving  acknowledged  the 
execution  thereof,  and  thereupon  he,  the  said  P.  M.  Wetmore,  sub- 
scribed his  name  as  a  witness  thereto. 

H.  PEARSALL, 

Justice  of  the  Peace. 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  the  15th  day 
of  April,  1857,  at  3  o'clock  p.  m. 

Examined  by—  STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerh 

Queens  County,   ss. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby  cer- 
tify that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  as  the  same 
is  recorded  in  my  office,  in  Liber  150  of  Deeds,  page  263,  &c.,  and 
that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof,  and  of  the  whole 
of  such  original. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  affixed  the 
[l.  s.I     seal  of  the  said  county,  this  25th  day  of  Februarv,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk, 


Engineer  Department, 

Washington,  July  8,  1857. 

Sir  :  You  will  receive  a  treasury  draft  in  your  favor,  for  one  hun- 
dred and  fifteen  thousand  dollars,  which  sum  you  will  pay  to  Mr. 
George  Irving  and  wife,  on  account  of  a  purchase  of  land  made  by 
the  Secretary  of  War  of  said  persons,  as  the  site  of  a  fortification 
about  to  be  begun  at  Willet's  Point,  opposite  Fort  Schuyler. 

You  will  in  person  deliver  this  draft  to  Mr.  Irving  and  wife — having 
made  it  payable  to  them — taking,  at  the  same  time,  such  receipt  in 
duplicate  as  will  be  your  voucher  at  the  treasury. 

A  voucher  of  the  form  herewith  is  recommended.  Your  immediate 
attention  to  this  business  is  requested. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOS.  G.  TOTTEN, 
Bt.  Brig,  Gen.,  and  Col.  Eng's, 
Lieut.  Q.  A.  Gillmore, 

Captain  of  Engineers,  New  York, 


APPENDIX.  369 


No.  7. 


This  indenture,  made  the  twelfth  day  of  May,  in  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  between  George  Irving,  of  Little 
Neck,  in  the  county  of  Queens  and  State  of  New  York,  party  of  the 
first  part,  and  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankensteyn_,  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  trustee  of  certain  property  and  effects  for  the  benefit  of  Celine 
Frances,  wife  of  Frederick  Wissmann,  party  of  the  second  part; 
whereas  the  said  George  Irving  is  justly  indebted  to  the  said  party  of 
the  second  part  in  the  sum  of  eighty- five  thousand  dollars,  lawful 
money  of  the  United  States,  secured  to  be  paid  by  his  certain  bond  or 
obligation  bearing  even  date  with  these  presents,  in  the  penal  sum  of 
one  hundred  and  seventy  thousand  dollars,  lawful  money  as  aforesaid, 
conditioned  for  the  payment  of  the  said  first  mentioned  sum  of  eighty- 
five  thousand  dollars,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  April,  which  will  be  in 
the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixtyTtwo,  with  interest 
thereon  at  the  rate  of  seven  per  cent,  per  annum,  payable  half  yearly, 
on  the  fifteenth  days  of  October  and  April  in  each  and  every  year  ; 
which  said  bond  also  contains  an  agreement,  that  should  any  default 
be  made  in  the  payment  of  the  said  interest,  or  any  part  thereof,  on 
any  day  whereon  the  same  is  made  payable,  as  above  expressed,  and 
should  the  same  remain  unpaid  and  in  arrear  for  the  space  of  thirty 
days,  then  and  from  thenceforth,  that  is  to  say,  after  the  lapse 
of  the  said  thirty  days,  the  aforesaid  principal  sum  of  eighty-five 
thousand  dollars,  with  all  arrearage  of  interest  thereon,  shall,  at 
the  option  of  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  or  his  legal  representa- 
tives, become  and  be  due  and  payable  immediately  thereafter,  although 
the  time  limited  for  the  payment  thereof  may  not  then  have  expired, 
anything  in  the  said  bond  contained  to  the  contrary  thereof  in  any- 
wise notwithstanding,  as  by  the  said  bond  or  obligation,  and  the 
condition  thereof,  and  the  said  agreement  therein  contained,  reference 
being  thereunto  had,  may  more  fully  appear.  Now,  this  indenture 
witnesseth,  that  the  said  party  of  the  first  part,  for  the  better  securing 
the  payment  of  the  said  sum  of  money  mentioned  in  the  condition  of 
the  said  bond  or  obligation,  with  interest  thereon,  according  to  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  thereof,  and  also  for  and  in  consideration  of 
the  sum  of  one  dollar  to  him  in  hand  paid  by  the  said  party  of  the 
second  part^  at  or  before  the  ensealing  and  delivery  of  these  presents, 
the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged,  hath  granted,  bargained, 
sold,  aliened,  released,  conveyed  and  confirmed,  and  by  these  presents 
doth  grant,  bargain,  sell,  alien,  release,  convey  and  confirm  unto  the 
said  party  of  the  second  part,  and  to  his  successors  and  assigns  for- 
ever, all  that  certain  farm,  tract,  or  parcel  of  land,  situate,  lying,  and 
being  near  a  place  called  Willet's  Neck,  in  the  county  of  Queens  and 
State  of  New  York,  bounded  and  described  as  follows — that  is  to  say: 
beginning  at  a  stake  on  the  northeasterly  side  of  the  bridge,  across 
the  creek  in  the  centre  of  Mr.  Wissmann's  new  private  road  leading 
from  the  highway  to  his  house,  being  the  most  southerly  corner  of 
Mr.  Day's  land,  and  running  the  centre  of  said  road  north,  thirty- 
seven  degrees  fourteen  minutes  east,  five  hundred  and  twenty  feet ; 

H.  Rep.  Com.  549 24 


370  APPENDIX. 

thence  nortli,  twenty-six  degrees  twenty- nine  minutes  east,  one  liun- 
dred  and  forty  feet ;  thence  north,  twenty-two  degrees  thirty-three 
minutes  west^  seven  hundred  and  thirteen  feet  six  inches  ;  thence 
north,  seventy-four  degrees  thirty-six  minutes  west,  along  Mr. 
Day's  land  to  the  East  river  ;  thence  following  the  windings  of  the 
river,  northerly  and  easterly,  to  Little  Neck  bay ;  thence  along  the 
bay,  southerly  and  westerly,  to  the  centre  of  the  creek  above  men- 
tioned ;  and  thence,  following  the  centre  of  the  said  creek  as  it  winds 
and  turns,  in  a  northerly  direction,  to  the  point  of  beginning — con- 
taining about  one  hundred  and  ten  acres,  be  the  same  more  or  less  ; 
together  with  a  right  of  way  over  the  road  which  crosses  the  said 
bridge  and  causeway,  running  to  the  public  highway;  being  the  same 
premises  this  day  conveyed  by  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  to- 
gether with  the  said  Frederick  Wissmann  and  Celine  Frances,  his  wife, 
to  the  party  of  the  first  part,  by  an  indenture  bearing  even  date  here- 
with ;  and  these  presents  being  executed  and  delivered  to  secure  the 
payment  of  a  portion  of  the  purchase  or  consideration  money  expressed 
in  said  deed  ;  together  with  all  and  singular  the  tenements,  heredita- 
ments, and  appurtenances  thereunto  belonging,  or  in  any  wise  apper- 
taining, and  the  reversion  and  reversions,  remainder  and  remainders, 
rents,  issues,  and  profits  thereof;  and  also  all  the  estate,  right, 
title,  interest,  property,  possession,  claim  and  demand  whatsoever, 
as  well  in  law  as  in  equity,  of  the  said  party  of  the  first  part,  of,  in 
and  to  the  same,  and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the  appur- 
tenances :  to  have  and  to  hold  the  above  granted,  bargained,  and  de- 
scribed premises,  with  the  appurtenances,  unto  the  said  party  of  the 
second  part,  his  successors  and  assigns,  to  his  and  their  own  proper 
use,  benefit^  and  behoof  forever  :  Provided  always,  and  these  presents 
are  upon  this  express  condition,  that  if  the  said  party  of  the  first  part, 
his  heirs,  executors  or  administrators,  shall  well  and  truly  pay  unto 
the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  his  successors  or  assigns,  the  said 
sum  of  money  mentioned  in  the  condition  of  the  said  bond  or  obliga- 
tion, and  the  interest  tliereon,  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  men- 
tioned in  the  said  condition  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
thereof,  that  then  these  presents,  and  the  estate  hereby  granted,  shall 
cease,  determine  and  be  void.  And  the  said  George  Irving  doth 
covenant  and  agree  to  pay  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  his 
successors  or  assigns,  the  said  sum  of  money  and  interest  as  above 
mentioned  and  expressed  in  the  condition  of  the  said  bond  ;  and  if 
default  shall  be  made  in  the  payment  of  the  said  sum  of  money 
above  mentioned,  or  the  interest  that  may  grow  due  thereon,  or  of 
any  part  of  either,  tliat  then  and  from  thencelbrth,  it  shall  be  lawful 
for  the  said  ])arty  of  tlie  second  part,  his  successors  or  assigns,  to 
enter  into  and  upon  all  and  singuhir  the  premises  hereby  granted  or 
intended  so  to  he,  and  to  sell  and  dispose  of  the  same,  and  all  benefit 
and  equity  of  re(lemj)tion  of  the  said  party  of  the  first  part,  his  heirs 
or  assigns  therein,  at  public  auction,  according  to  the  act  in  such 
case  made  and  i)rovided.  And  as  the  attorney  of  the  said  party  of 
the  firbt  part  tor  that  purpose,  by  these  presents,  duly  authorized, 
constituted,  and  appointed  to  make  and  deliver  to  tlie  purchaser  or 
purchasers  thereof  a  good  and  sufficient  deed  or  deeds  of  conveyance 


APPENDIX  371 

in  tlie  law  for  the  same  in  fee  simple.  And  out  of  the  money  arising 
from  such  sale,  to  retain  the  principal  and  interest  which  shall  then 
be  due  on  the  said  bond  or  obligation,  together  with  the  costs  and 
charges  of  advertisement  and  sale  of  the  said  premises,  rendering  the 
overplus  of  the  purchase  money,  (if  any  there  shall  be,)  unto  the  said 
George  Irving,  his  heirs  or  assigns,  which  sale,  so  to  be  made,  shall 
forever  be  a  perpetual  bar,  both  in  law  and  equity,  against  the  said 
party  of  the  first  part,  his  legal  representatives  and  assigns,  and 
against  all  other  persons  claiming  or  to  claim  the  premises,  or  any 
part  thereof,  by,  from,  or  under  him,  them,  or  any  of  them. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  party  of  the  first  part  has  hereunto  set  his 
hand  and  seal  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

GEOKGE  IRVING,  [seal.] 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — 

James  P.  Hyatt. 

City  and  county  of  New  York,  ss. 

On  this  fifteenth  day  of  May,  185  7^,  before  me,  came  George  Irving^ 
known  to  me  to  be  the  same  person  described  in  and  who  executed  the 
foregoing  indenture,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same. 

JAMES  P.  HYATT, 
Commissioner  of  Deeds. 

State  of  New  York,         ) 
Qity  and  County  of  New  York,  ) 

I,  Richard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York, 
and  also  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  for  said  city  and  county,  do  hereby 
certify  that  James  P.  Hyatt,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  certifi- 
cate of  the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  annexed  instrument,  and 
thereon  written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking  such  proof  or  acknowledg- 
ment, a  commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city  and  county,  dwelling  in 
the  said  city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and  duly  authorized  to  take 
the  same. 

And  further^  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  handwriting  of 
such  commissioner^  and  verily  believe  that  the  signature  to  the  said 
certificate  of  proof  or  acknowledgment  is  genuine. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
r  -1  seal  of  the  said  court  and  county,  the  third  day  of  July,  eighteen 
^  *  ''^  hundred  and  fifty-seven. 

RICHARD  B.  CONNOLLY,  Clerk. 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  the  6th  day 
of  July,  1857,  at  5  o'clock,  p.  m. 
Examined  by—  STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,   Clerk, 

Queens  County,  55. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby  cer- 
tify that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  as  the  same 
is  recorded  in  my  office^  in  Liber  94  of  Mortgages,  page  144,  &c.,  and 


372  APPENDIX, 

that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof,  and  of  the  whole 
of  such  original. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
r  ^  -J  seal  of  the  said  county,  this  tenth  day  of  February,  eighteen 
'-  '  '"-'  hundred  and  fifty-eight. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Cleric, 


No.  8. 

This  indenture  of  agreement,  made  the  nineteenth  day  of  Novem- 
ber, 1856,  between  Frederick  Wissmann,  of  the  town  of  Flushing,  and 
Celine  Frances,  his  wife,  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  Henry  Day,  of 
the  city  of  New  York,  party  of  the  second  part,  witnesseth:  That  the 
parties  of  the  first  part,  in  consideration  of  one  dollar,  and  of  these 
presents,  have  sold  and  do  hereby  sell  unto  the  said  Henry  Day  a  por- 
tion of  the  premises  situate  in  the  town  of  Flushing,  called  Willett's 
Neck,  as  follows  :  The  portions  thereof,  marked  on  a  diagram  or  map 
thereof,  made  by  W.  Hexamer,  viz :  the  southerly  half  of  number  4, 
all  of  numbers  5  and  6,  and  also  the  land  between  number  6  and  a 
line  drawn  from  the  southwesterly  corner  of  the  picket  fence  of  the 
garden  of  the  old  house,  and  running  in  a  straight  line  to  the  north 
corner  of  the  bridge  across  the  creek  in  the  rear  of  the  land,  the 
southerly  line  to  extend  from  said  bridge  west,  to  the  East  river,  or 
Long  Island  Sound. 

The  said  land  hereby  sold  is  bounded  westerly  by  the  East  river  or 
Sound,  and  easterly  by  the  road  laid  out  on  the  neck  across  the  cause- 
way extending  to  the  middle  of  said  road,  which  road  shall  be  kept 
open  thirty-two  feet  wide,  as  far  as  Mr.  Day's  land  extends,  16  feet  on 
each  party,  for  the  price  of  |500  per  acre,  for  all  the  land  contained 
in  number  4,  number  5  and  number  6,  and  $2,000  for  the  land  lying 
south  of  the  southerly  line  of  number  6,  provided  there  are  five  acres 
of  area  northerly  of  a  line  extending  from  the  river  to  the  said  corner 
of  the  picket  fence,  and  thence  in  a  straight  line  to  the  southerly  end 
of  the  Cedar  knoll  near  the  said  bridge  ;  if  there  is  in  said  last  men- 
tioned piece  less  than  five  acres  in  area  north  of  the  line  extending 
from  the  East  river  to  the  middle  of  the  road  in  the  rear,  then  the  parties 
of  the  first  part  shall  deduct  from  said  $2,000  at  the  rate  of  $400  per 
acre  for  such  deficiency.  The  parties  of  the  first  part  shall  convey  or 
cause  to  be  conveyed  to  the  said  Day  a  good  and  satisfactory  title. 
The  mortgage,  now  a  lien  on  the  premises,  shall  be  paid  off"  or  cause 
to  be  removed  by  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  so  as  to  save  Mr. 
Day  and  his  heirs  and  assigns  harmless  from  the  same,  although  Mr. 
Day  shall  not  require  this  to  be  done  before  the  deed  is  delivered,  if 
the  mortgagee  objects  to  releasing  the  portion  hereby  sold  ;  but  in  the 
deed  to  Mr.  Day  this  property  shall  not  be  made  subject  to  said 
mortgages. 

It  is  understood  and  agreed  that  Mr.  Day  is  to  have  with  this  land 
also  a  riglit  of  way  along  the  road  in  the  rear  of  his  land,  and  across 
the  causeway  in  the  rear,  to  tlie  public  road  ;  and  also  a  right  of  way 
in  front,  near  the  old  house,  to  the  said  public  road,  and  he  shall  take 
his  land  subject  to  a  convenient  and  passable  right  of  way  of  the  width 
of  thirty  feet  along  the  southerly  line  upon  the  upland  from  the  road 


APPENDIX.  373 

leading  from  the  public  road  to  the  old  house  to  the  said  road  across 
the  causeway  in  the  rear,  which  way,  convenient  and  passable,  shall  be 
opened  by  Mr.  Day  before  he  closes  the  old  way.  The  parties  of  the 
first  part  shall  have  the  use  of  that  part  of  the  old  house  now  occu- 
pied by  their  farmer^  free  of  rent,  until  April  1,  1857.  In  payment, 
Mr.  Day  shall  convey  to  Mr.  Wissmann,  or  any  person  the  parties  of 
the  first  part  shall  designate,  by  a  good  title,  the  premises  number 
140  West  Thirty-Ninth  street,  and  number  136  West  Forty-Third 
street,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  for  the  sum  of  $17,250,  subject  to 
mortgages  for  a  term  of  three  years  yet  unexpired,  for  eight  thousand 
dollars  or  thereabouts,  so  as  to  make  the  amount  due  for  the  land  and 
for  the  houses,  exclusive  of  the  mortgages,  as  nearly  equal  as  possible. 
It  is  understood  that  the  said  premises  shall  be  furnished  with  Croton 
water,  baths,  wash  basins,  gas  fixtures,  heating  apparatus,  &c.,  all 
comj)lete  ;  and  Mr.  Day  shall  guaranty  the  rent  on  said  houses  at  the 
rate  of  seven  hundred  dollars  per  annum  each,  until  May  1,  1857,  from 
November  1,  1856, 

The  title  shall  be  passed  as  soon  as  they  can  be  conveniently  exam- 
ined, when  the  parties  of  the  first  part  shall  cause  a  deed  to  be  exe- 
cuted of  said  premises  to  said  Day  by  the  trustee  of  the  said  Celine 
Francis  Wissmann,  in  which  the  parties  of  the  first  part  shall  join.  It 
is  understood  that  if  the  parties  of  the  first  part  cannot  obtain  a  re- 
lease of  the  rights  of  Jacob  Wilkins  in  the  small  burying  ground 
which  lies  in  number  4,  then  Mr.  Day  shall  take  his  land  subject  to 
the  same  ;  but  the  parties  of  the  first  part  shall  allow  a  deduction  for 
the  same  at  the  rate  of  five  hundred  dollars  per  acre.  It  is  also  un- 
derstood that  the  land  shall  be  surveyed  and  the  area  computed  from 
the  ordinary  high  water  mark  on  the  East  river,  or  Sound,  and  extend 
to  the  middle  of  the  road  in  the  rear. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  said  parties  have  hereunto  set  their  hands 
and  seals,  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

FFvED'K  WISSMANN,  [l.  s.] 
CELINE  F.  WISSMANN,  l.  s.l 
HENRY  DAY,  [l.  s.] 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — 

[The  words  ''  which  way,  convenient  and  passable,  shall  be  opened 
by  Mr.  Day  before  he  closes  the  old  way,"  on  the  third  page  written, 
and  partly  on  the  margin  on  said  page,  before  execution.] 
Samuel  Willett, 

As  to  the  signature  of  Celine  F,  Wissmann, 
George  W.  Wingate, 

As  to  Fred'k  Wissmann  and  Henry  Day. 
State  of  New  York, 

Queens  County, 

On  this  twenty-first  day  of  November,  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  fifty-six,  before  me,  personally  came  Celine  F.  Wissmann, 
known  to  me  to  be  one  of  the  individuals  described  in  and  who  exe- 
cuted the  foregoing  instrument,  who  duly  acknowledged  that  she 
executed  the  same. 

SAM'L  WILLETT, 

Justice  of  the  Peace. 


374  APPENDIX. 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss. 

On  this  26th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1856^  before  me,  came 
George  W.  Wingate,  subscribing  witness  to  the  foregoing  instrument, 
to  me  known,  who,  being  by  me  duly  sworn,  did  depose  and  say, 
that  he  is  acquainted  with  Frederick  AVissmann  and  Henry  Day,  and 
knows  them  to  be  the  same  persons  described  in  and  who  executed 
the  foregoing  instrument ;  that  they  executed  the  same  in  his  pres- 
ence ;  that  at  their  request  he  subscribed  his  name  as  witness  thereto, 
and  that  he  resides  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

HENRY  BALDWIN, 

Commissioner  of  Deeds. 

State  of  New  York,  ? 

City  and  County  of  Ntio  York,  )     ' 

I,  Richard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York, 
do  hereby  certify  that  Henry  Baldwin,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to 
the  certificate  of  the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  annexed  instru- 
ment, and  thereon  written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking  such  proof  or 
acknowledgment,  a  commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city  and  county, 
dwelling  in  said  city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and  duly  authorized 
to  take  the  same.  And  further,  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the 
handwriting  of  such  commissioner,  and  verily  believe  that  the  signa- 
ture to  the  said  certificate  of  proof  or  acknowledgment  is  genuine. 


[L.  S.] 


In   testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 
affixed  the  seal  of  the  county,  the  26th  dav  of  November,  1856. 

RICH.  B.  CONNOLLY,  Cleric. 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  on  the  29th 
day  of  November,  1856,  at  3  o'clock  p.  m. 
Examined  by — 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 

Queens  County,  ss. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby  cer- 
tify that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  as  the  same 
is  recorded  in  my  office,  in  Liber  147  of  Deeds,  page  201,  d'c;  and 
that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof,  and  the  whole 
of  such  original. 

P        -|         In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  af- 
^^'    '-I     fixed  the  seal  of  said  county,  this  15th  day  of  February,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 


No.  9. 

Cornelius  Van  Blankenstyne,  trustee,  to  Henry  Bay. 

Tills  indenture,  made  the  sixteenth  day  of  February,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  between  Cornelius  Van  Bhmkenstyne, 
trustee  of  Celine  Frances  Wissmann,  wife  of  Frederick  Wissmann, 


APPENDIX.  375 

party  of  the  first  part,  and  the  said  Frederick  Wissmann,  of  the  town 
of  Flushing,  in  the  county  of  Queens,  and  Celine  Frances,  his  wife, 
parties  of  the  second  part,  and  Henry  Day,  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
counsellor-at-law,  party  of  the  second  part,  witnesseth  that  the  said 
party  of  the  first  part,  hy  and  with  the  consent  of  the  said  Celine 
Frances  Wissmann,  signified  by  her  joining  in  the  execution  of  these 
presents  of  the  second  part_,  witnesseth  :  That  the  said  parties  of  the 
first  and  second  parts,  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  eleven 
thousand  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  dollars,  lawful  money  of  the 
United  States,  to  him  in  hand  paid  by  the  said  party  of  the  third 
part,  at  or  before  the  ensealing  and  delivery  of  these  presents,  the 
receipt  whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged,  and  the  said  party  of  the  third 
part,  his  heirs,  executors  and  administrators,  forever  released  and 
discharged  from  the  same,  by  these  presents  hath  granted,  bargained, 
sold,  aliened,  remised,  released,  conveyed  and  confirmed,  and  by  these 
presents  doth  grant,  bargain,  sell,  alien,  remise,  release,  convey  and 
confirm  unto  the  said  party  of  the  third  part,  and  to  his  heirs  and 
assigns  forever,  all  that  certain  piece  or  parcel  of  land  situate,  lying 
and  being  in  the  town  of  Flushing,  Long  Island,  upon  a  certain  neck, 
commonly  called  Willett's  Keck  or  Wilkins'  N^ck,  bounded  and 
described  as  follows,  namely :  beginning  on  the  southeasterly  corner 
of  the  land  hereby  conveyed,  on  the  margin  of  the  Salt  creek,  at  a 
stake  ;  on  the  northeasterly  side  of  the  bridge  across  the  Salt  creek, 
at  the  middle  of  the  private  road  leading  from  the  highway  to  the 
house  now  occupied  by  Mr.  Frederick  Wissmann,  and  running  thence 
in  a  straight  line  north,  fifty-two  degrees  thirty-one  minutes  (52°  31') 
west,  one  thousand  three  hundred  and  forty-four  (1,344)  feet  two 
inches,  more  or  less,  to  high  water  mark  of  the  East  river,  or  Long 
Island  Sound  ;  thence  along  high  water  mark  of  the  same  north,  fifty- 
four  degrees  twenty-three  minutes  (54°  23')east,  ninety-nine  (99)  feet 
eight  inches;  and  thence  still  along  said  high  water  mark  north,  forty 
degrees  thirty-three  minutes  (40°  33')  east,  one  hundred  and  three 
(103)  feet  one  inch ;  thence  still  along  said  high  water  mark  north, 
twenty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  (2G°  30',)  east,  three  hundred  and 
ninety-one  (391)  feet  seven  (7)  inches  ;  thence  still  along  said  high  water 
mark  north,  six  degrees  ten  minutes  (6^  10')  east,  one  hundred  and 
twenty-four  (124)  feet  four  (4)  inches,  to  other  land  of  the  party  of  the 
first  part  ;  thence  south,  seventy-four  degrees  thirty-six  minutes 
(74°  36',)  east,  eight  hundred  and  sixty-five  (865)  feet  seven  (7)  inches, 
to  the  centre  of  a  private  road  above  mentioned ;  thence  along  the  centre 
of  said  road  south,  twenty-two  degrees  thirty-three  minutes  (22°  33') 
east,  seven  hundred  and  thirteen  (713)  feet  six  (6)  inches  ;  thence  still 
along  the  centre  of  said  road  south,  twenty-six  degrees  twenty-nine 
(26°  29')  west,  one  hundred  and  forty  (140)  feet ;  thence  still  along 
the  centre  of  said  road  south,  thirty-seven  degrees  fourteen  minutes 
(37°  14')  west,  five  hundred  and  twenty  (520)  feet  to  the  place  of 
beginning — containing  twenty-six  (26)  acres  and  thirty-five  one-hun- 
dredths  (35-100)  of  an  acre  of  land,  as  the  same  were  surveyed  by 
John  T.  Carle,  surveyor. 

Together  with  all  right,  title,  and  interest,  if  any,  of  the  parties  of 
the  first  and  second  parts,  to  the  land  between  high  and  low  water 


376  APPENDIX. 

ark,  on  said  East  river ;  the  said  land  hereby  conveyed  being  bounded 
easterly  by  the  centre  line  of  a  road  laid  out  on  the  Neck  acrosss  the 
causeway,  and  extends  to  the  middle  of  the  said  road,  which  said  road 
shall  be  left  open  by  the  parties  hereto  thirty-two  (32)  feet  wide,  or 
sixteen  (16)  feet  upon  the  land  of  the  party  of  the  first  part,  and  six- 
teen feet  upon  the  land  hereby  conveyed,  as  far  as  the  land  of  the 
party  of  the  third  parts  extends.  Together  with  a  right  of  way  to  the 
party  of  the  third  part,  his  heirs  and  assigns,  in  and  over  the  said 
road  in  the  rear  of  the  land  hereby  conveyed,  and  across  the  bridge 
and  causeway  to  the  public  road  ;  and  also  a  certain  other  right  of  way 
to  the  party  of  the  third  part,  his  heirs  and  assigns,  from  the  front  of 
the  land  hereby  conveyed,  and  near  the  old  house  along  and  near  the 
said  Long  Island  Sound,  to  the  said  public  road. 

The  land  above  granted  is  conveyed,  subject,  nevertheless,  to  a  con- 
venient and  passable  right  of  way  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  and 
second  parts,  their  heirs  and  assigns,  of  the  width  of  thirty  feet  along 
the  southerly  line  ;  but  upon  the  upland,  irom  the  road  leading  from 
the  public  road  to  the  old  house,  to  the  said  road  across  the  causeway, 
in  the  rear,  which  way,  convenient  and  passable,  shall  be  opened  by 
the  said  party  of  the  third  before  he  closes  the  old  way. 

Together  wdth  all  and  singular  the  tenements,  hereditaments  and 
appurtenances  thereunto  belonging  or  in  anywise  appertaining,  and 
the  reversion  and  reversions,  remainder  and  remainders,  rents,  issues 
and  profits  thereof;  and  also  all  the  estate,  right,  title,  interest,  prop- 
erty, possession,  claim  and  demand  whatsoever,  as  wellin  law  as  in 
equity,  of  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  of,  in  and  to  the  same, 
and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the  appurtenances  :  To  have 
and  to  hold  the  above  granted,  bargained  and  described  premises, 
with  the  appurtenances,  unto  the  said  party  of  the  third  part,  his 
heirs  and  assigns,  to  his  and  their  own  proper  use,  benefit  and  behoof 
forever. 

And  the  said  Frederick  Wissmann,  for  himself,  his  heirs,  executors 
and  administrators,  doth  covenant,  grant  and  agree  to  and  with  the 
said  party  of  the  third  part^  his  heirs  and  assigns,  that  the  said  Cor- 
nelius Van  Bhmkenstyne,  at  the  time  of  the  sealing  and  delivery  of 
these  presents,  is  lawiuUy  seized  in  trust  for  the  said  Celine  Frances 
Wissmann,  of  a  good,  absolute  and  indefeasible  estate  of  inheritance, 
in  fee  simple,  of  and  in  all  and  singular  the  above  granted  and  de- 
scribed premises,  with  the  appurtenances,  and  hath  good  right,  full 
power  and  lawful  authority  to  grant,  bargain,  sell  and  convey  the 
same  in  manner  aioresaid  ;  and  that  the  said  party  of  the  third  part, 
his  heirs  and  assigns,  shall  and  may,  at  all  times  hereafter,  peaceably 
and  quietly  have,  hold,  use,  occupy,  possess  and  enjoy  the  above 
granted  pemises,  and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the  a})pur- 
tenances,  without  any  let,  suit,  trouble,  molestation,  eviction  or  dis- 
turbance of  the  said  })arties  of  the  first  or  second  ])arts,  and  their 
successors,  heirs  or  assigns,  or  of  any  other  person  or  persons  lawfully 
claiming  or  to  claim  the  same  ;  and  that  the  same  now  are  free,  clear, 
discharged  and  unincumbered,  of  and  from  all  former  and  other  grants, 
titles,  cliarges,  estates,  judgments,  taxes,  assessments  and  incum- 
brances, of  what  nature  or  kind  soever  ;  and  also  that  the  said  parties 


APPENDIX.  377 

of  the  first  and  second  parts,  and  their  heirs,  and  all  and  every  person 
or  persons  whomsoever  lawfully  or  equitably  deriving  any  estate, 
right,  title  or  interest,  of,  in  or  to  the  hereinbefore  granted  premises, 
by,  from,  under  or  in  trust  for  them,  or  either  of  them,  shall  and  will, 
at  any  time  or  times  hereafter,  upon  the  reasonable  request,  and  at 
the  proper  costs  and  charges  in  the  law,  of  the  said  party  of  the  third 
part,  his  heirs  and  assigns,  make,  do  and  execute,  or  cause  to  be  made, 
done  and  executed,  all  and  every  such  further  and  other  lawful  and 
reasonable  acts,  conveyances  and  assurances  in  the  law,  for  the  better 
and  more  effectually  vesting  and  confirming  the  premises  hereby 
granted,  or  so  intended  to  be,  in  and  to  the  said  party  of  the  third  part, 
his  heirs  and  assigns  forever,  as  by  the  said  party  of  the  third  part, 
his  heirs  or  assigns,  or  his  or  their  counsel  learned  in  the  law,  shall 
be  reasonably  advised  or  required.  And  the  said  Frederick  Wissmann 
and  his  heirs,  the  above  described  and  hereby  granted  and  released 
premises,  and  every  part  and  parcel  thereof,  with  the  appurtenances, 
unto  the  said  party  of  the  third  part,  his  heirs  and  assigns,  against 
the  said  parties  of  the  first  and  second  part,  and  their  heirs,  and 
against  all  and  every  person  and  persons  whomsoever  lawfully  claim- 
ing or  to  claim  the  same,  shall  and  will  warrant  and  by  these  presents 
forever  defend. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  parties  to  these  presents  have  hereunto  inter- 
changeably set  their  hands  and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above 
written. 

C.  F.  VAN  BLANKENSTYNE.        [l.  s.] 
FREDERICK  WI8SMANN.  [l.  s.] 

CELINE  FRANCES  WISSMANN.   [l.  s.] 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of — 

Samuel  Willett, 

As  to  signatures  of  Frederick  Wissmann  and  wife. 
Richard  A.  Chambers, 

As  to  C.  F.  Van  Blankenstyne. 

State  of  New  York,  ; 
Queens  County,       )     ' 

On  the  sixteenth  day  of  February,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
fifty-seven,  before  me,  personally  came  Frederick  Wissmann  and  Celine 
Frances,  his  wife,  both  known  to  me  to  be  the  same  individuals  de- 
scribed in  and  who  executed  the  within  conveyance,  who  severally 
duly  acknowledged  that  they  executed  the  same  ;  and  the  said  Celine 
Frances,  on  a  private  examination  by  and  before  me^  separate  and 
apart  from  her  husband,  acknowledged  that  she  executed  the  same 
freely,  and  without  any  fear  or  compulsion  of  or  from  her  said  hus- 
band. 

SAMUEL  WILLETT, 
Justice  of  the  Peace, 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss. 

On  the  twentieth  day  of  February,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven,  before  me,  personally  came  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankenstyne 


o 


78  APPENDIX. 


knowD  to  me  to  be  the  individual  described  ia  and  who  executed  the 
within  instrument,  and  acknowledajed  that  he  executed  the  same. 

E.  A.  CHAMBERS, 
Commissioner  of  Deeds. 

State  of  New  York,  }_^ 

City  and  County  of  New  For  A.*,  \''^' 

I.  Richard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  the  city  and  county  of  l?ew  York, 
and  also  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  for  said  city  and  county,  do  hereby 
certify  that  R.  A.  Chambers,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  certifi- 
cate of  the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  annexed  instrument,  and 
thereon  written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking  such  proof  or  acknowledg- 
ment, a  commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city  and  county,  dwelling  in 
the  said  city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and  duly  authorized  to  take 
the  same  ;  and  further,  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  hand- 
writing of  such  commissioner,  and  verily  believe  that  the  signature 
to  the  said  certificate  of  proof  or  acknowledgment  is  genuine. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
r  -  seal  of  the  said  court  and  countv,  the  4th  dav  of  March, 
L^-  ^-^      1S57. 

RICHARD  B.  COX^'OLLY,  Cleric, 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  on  the  6th 
dav  of  March,  1S57,  at  9  o'clock  a.  m. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Cleric. 

Qfeexs  Countt,  ss. 

I.  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby  cer- 
tify that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  as  the  same 
is  recorded  in  my  office,  in  Liber  149  of  Deeds,  page  295.  c^'c  and  that 
the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof  and  the  whole  of  said 
original. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
seal  of  said  countv,  this  15th  dav  of  Februarv,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Cleric. 


[L.    S.] 


No.  10. 

Sir  :  Within  a  few  days  of  the  close  of  the  late  Congress,  and 
when  the  '*  fortification  bill"  was  up  in  the  Senate,  I  wrote  a  hasty 
note  to  the  Hon.  Hamilton  Fish,  of  that  body,  requesting  him  to  have 
inserted  in  the  bill  an  appropriation  of  $100,000  for  the  purchase  of 
''  Wilkins  Xeckj"  near  this  place,  and  almost  opposite  "  Fort  Schuy- 
ler," and  the  pum  of  $50,000  for  the  commencement  of  a  fortification 
thereon.  Mr.  Fish,  before  receiving  my  note,  had  done  as  I  desired, 
and  the  bill  almost  immediately  passed  the  Senate  and  House,  and 
soon  became  a  law.     Previous  to  this  I  had  addressed  General  Totten 


APPENDIX.  379 

on  the  subject  of  purchasing  this  site  for  a  fortification^  and  had 
received  from  him  a  reply,  informing  me  that  the  government  had 
long  desired  to  make  a  purchase,  and  would  do  so  as  soon  as  an  appro- 
priation was  made. 

Permit  me  to  say,  sir,  that  I  reside  near  the  site  mentioned,  know 
it  well,  and  have  long  known  its  owner.  He  gave  for  the  property 
(the  ivliole  of  it)  §35,000,  and  has  built  upon  it  a  fine  house,  and  in 
other  respects  improved  it.  He  has  also  sold  off  several  portions,  and 
the  parties  buying  of  him  have  commenced  building.  Before  I  left 
home  to  attend  the  last  session  of  the  34th  Congress,  Mr.  Wissman 
was  anxious  that  I  should  find  out  if  the  government  wanted  his 
property.     To  this  end  I  wrote  to  General  Totten,  as  above  stated. 

On  my  return  home,  after  the  adjournment,  Mr.  Wissman  met  me, 
and  as  he  had  heard  of  the  appropriation  made,  thought  proper  to 
imagine  a  ''  trick"  had  been  played  him,  and  that  the  amount  was 
not  sufficient.  Subsequent  to  this,  and  after  some  negotiation  had 
been  had  with  him  upon  the  subject  by  government  parties,  Mr. 
Wissman  made  a  sale  to  third  persons  for  §130,000,  the  said  parties 
purchasing  on  speculation,  and  designing  to  obtain  from  the  govern- 
ment, for  the  same  property,  the  sum  of  $200,000.  So  the  case 
stands  at  present. 

I  have  thought  it  my  duty,  sir,  to  give  you  this  information,  and 
to  offer  my  services  in  any  way  available.  All  parties  here  who  know 
the  property  well,  consider  Mr.  Wissman  well  paid  at  §100,000,  and 
I  am  not  disposed  to  have  speculations  made  upon  the  treasury  for  the 
aggrandizement  of  persons  who  deem  it  fair  enough  to  cheat  Uncle 
Sam  if  opportunity  offers. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  W.  VALK. 

Hon.  Secretary  of  War, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 

The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original  now  on  file  in  this 
office. 

'  H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


No.    11. 

82  Merchants'  Exchange,  New  York, 

March  18,  1857. 
My  Dear  Sir  :  Agreeably  to  my  arrangement  with  you  yesterday, 
I  will  now  state  the  terms  on  which  I  will  offer  my  land  at  Willett's 
Neck  to  the  United  States  government. 

After  a  good  deal  of  looking  about,  I  have  chosen  this  place  as  the 
finest  I  could  discover  for  my  private  residence.  It  is,  in  my  estima- 
tion, the  choicest  part  of  the  Neck,  and  as  such  I  chose  it,  and  dis- 
posed of  valuable,  productive  property  in  the  city  for  it.     If  it  is 


380  APPENDIX. 

taken,  I  shall  find  it  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  find  another 
place  with  the  water  front  it  has  within  the  same  distance  of  New 
York.  I  consider  the  value  of  my  land  much  greater  than  the  bulk 
of  Mr.  Wissman's.  He  is  the  holder  of  a  large  amount,  desirous  of 
selling  ;  I  am  the  holder  of  a  small  choice  spot,  desirous  of  keeping 
it.  He  has  some  waste  land  ;  I  have  all  excellent  land,  with  fine 
trees,  and  water  of  good  depth  in  front,  and  fine  springs,  and  a  pond 
of  fresh  water^  the  only  naturally  flowing  water  on  tne  place.  I  have 
employed  an  architect,  and  have  my  plans  and  specifications  for 
building,  which  I  had  commenced.  I  had  employed  a  landscape 
gardener,  who  has  been  perfecting  a  plan  for  my  grounds.  I  have 
employed  a  carpenter  and  a  master  builder,  and  made  my  arrange- 
ments with  them  for  the  building  and  finishing  my  house  next  sum- 
mer, 1858.  K  any  land  is  taken,  I  am  left  with  all  these  expenses 
on  my  hands,  with  all  these  contracts,  to  be  arranged  as  best  I  can, 
and  I  am  left  without  a  house  or  place  which  perfectly  suited  me. 

A  road  is  laid  out  and  made  all  along  the  rear  of  my  land,  of 
which  I  own  one-half. 

Appurtenant  to  my  land,  and  passing  with  it,  are  two  rights  of 
way  to  the  public  road,  which  is  about  100  rods  to  the  south. 

I  have  one  right  of  way  to  the  said  road  from  the  rear  of  my  land 
across  the  creek  and  causeway,  over  which  there  is  a  road  now  built ; 
and  also  another  right  of  way  along  the  Sound  in  front.  These  rights 
of  way  are  of  the  greatest  importance,  for  they  constitute  the  only 
possible  approach  to  any  public  road. 

These  statements  1  have  made  that  my  true  position  may  be 
known,  and  I  believe  government  will  not  refuse  that  compensation 
which  will  be  vital  to  me  and  of  so  little  consequence  to  them. 

I  am  willing  the  government  should  take  my  grounds  on  the  fol- 
lowing terms: 

1.  For  the  land,  $1,500  per  acre,  26J  acres , $39,500 

2.  For  the  farm-house,  barn,  &c 3,000 

3.  For  expenses   of  architect,  plans   and   specifications, 

landscape  gardener  and  his  plans 800 

4.  Damages   in   annulling   contracts    with   builders   and 

masons,  and  expenses  in  digging 1,200 

44,500 


I  would  state  that  I  cannot  buy  land  between  the  Neck  and  New 
York  with  such  water  front  and  other  desirable  points  for  less  than 
fifteen  hundred  dollars  per  acre.  I  cannot  buy  land  on  tlie  North 
river,  witliin  fifty  miles  of  New  York,  with  fine  views,  for  less  than 
from  $1,700  to  $2,000  per  acre. 

It  is  proper  also  to  say  that  I  refused  to  ])urchase  at  Willet's  Neck 
until  I  had  direct  information  from  the  War  Department  at  Wash- 
ington last  fall,  that  there  was  no  hope  or  prospect  that  the  land 
would  be  taken  lor  the  purposes  of  the  government.    Upon  the  receipt 


APPENDIX.  381 

of  that  information  I  purchased  last  fall,  and  immediately  made  my 
preparations  to  build. 

I  desire  that  the   contents  of  this  letter  should  be  laid  before  the 
officers  of  the  department  whose  duty  it  is  to  decide  this  matter. 
Very  truly  yours, 

HENRY  DAY. 
Mr.  Van  Nostrand. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  a  copy  filed  in  this  office. 

H.  a.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers,  in  charge. 


No.  12. 

Flushing,  June  18,  1857. 
Sir:  The  district  attorney,  who  is  examinintr  title  of  property  sold 
by  me  to  the  United  States,  requires  me  to  produce  the  map  of  survey. 
The  only  copy  in  my  control  was  sent  by  me   to  the  War  Depart- 
ment in  April  last. 

May  I  ask  of  you  the  favor  to  order  the  map   to  be  transmitted  to 
Mr.  McKeon,  United  States  attorney,  as  early  as  practicable. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  IRVING. 
Hon.  J.  B.  Floyd. 

Engineer  Department,  February  27,  1858. 
The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the  original   now  on  file  in  this 
office. 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers ,  in  charge. 


No.  13. 

County  of  Queens,  ss, 

I,  Cliarles  Willets,  of  Flushing,  in  the  county  of  Queens,  State  of 
New  York,  do  hereby  certify  that  a  certain  mortgage,  dated  the  15th 
day  of  December,  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-two, 
made  and  executed  by  John  D.  Ruyter,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  gen- 
tleman, and  Desire,  his  wife,  to  me,  and  recorded  in  the  office  of  the 
clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  in  Lib.  66  of  Mortgages,  page  75,  on 
December  17,  1852,  is  paid  and  satisfied. 

Dated  August  3,  1857. 

^  CHARLES  A.  WILLETS. 

Witness :  Samuel  Willeit. 


382  APPENDIX. 

County  op  Queens,  ss. 

On  the  3d.  day  of  July,  1857,  before  me,  personally  came  Charles 
A.  Willets,  known  to  me  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who 
executed  the  above  certificate,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the 
same  as  his  act  and  deed. 

SAMUEL  WILLETT, 

Justice  of  the  Peace. 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  on  the  2Tth 
day  of  Is^ovember,  1857. 

S.  L.  SPADER,  Clerh. 

Queens  County,  6-5. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby 
certify  that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  as  the 
the  same  is  recorded  in  my  office,  in  Lib.  8  of  Discharges,  page 
291,  and  that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof  and 
the  whole  of  the  said  original. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
[l.  s.]  seal  of  said  county,  the  22d  day  of  February,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 


No.  14. 

State  of  New  York,  > 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  \ 

I,  Charles  P.  Lowerre,  of  Flushing,  Queens  county,  do  hereby  cer- 
tify that  a  certain  indenture  of  mortgage,  bearing  date  the  fifteentli 
day  of  December,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
two,  made  and  executed  by  John  De  Ruyter,  of  the  city  of  New  York, 
gentleman,  and  Desire,  his  wife,  to  me,  the  said  Charles  P.  Lowerre, 
and  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  Queens  county,  in  Lib.  66 
of  Mortgages,  page  79,  on  the  seventeenth  day  of  December,  in  the 
year  one  tliousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-two,  at  4  o'clock  and  36 
minutes  in  the  afternoon,  is  paid  ;  and  I  do  hereby  consent  that  the 
same  be  discliarged  of  record. 

Dated  the  third  day  of  July,  1857. 

CHARLES  P.  LOWERRE. 

In  presence  of — 

W.  C.  Wetmore. 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  )  ^^' 

On  tlie  tliird  day  of  July,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven,  before  me,  came  Charles  P.  Lowerre,  known  to  me  to  be  the 
individual  described  in  and  who  executed  the  above  certificate,  and 
acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same. 

JAMES  P.  HYATT, 
Commissioner  of  Deeds, 


APPENDIX.  383 

State  of  New  York, 
City  and  County  of  New  York, 

I,  Kicliard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  tlie  city  and  county  of  New  York, 
and  also  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  for  said  city  and  county,  do  here- 
by certify  that  James  P.  Hyatt,  whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  cer- 
tificate of  the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  annexed  instrument, 
and  thereon  written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking  such  proof  or  acknowl- 
edgment, a  commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city  and  county,  dwelling 
in  the  said  city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and  duly  authorized  to  take 
the  same.  And,  further,  that  I  am  well  acquainted  with  the  hand- 
writing of  such  commissioner,  and  verily  believe  that  the  said  certifi- 
cate of  proof  or  acknowledgment  is  genuine. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
[l.  s.I  ssal  of  said  court  and  county,  the  third  day  of  July,  1857. 

RICHARD  B.  CONNOLLY,  Clerh. 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  on  the  27th 
day  of  November,  1857. 

S.  L.  SPADER,  Clerh. 

Queens  County,  ss. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby 
certify  that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  certificate  with  the  original 
as  the  same  is  recorded  in  my  office,  in  Lib.  8  of  Discharges,  page 
290,  and  that  the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof  and 
the  whole  of  such  original. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
[l.  s.I  seal  of  said  county,  this  22d  day  of  February,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER,  Clerh. 


No.  15. 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

City  and  county  of  New  Yorh,  ) 

I,  Cornelius  F.  Van  Blankenstyne,  trustee  of  certain  property  and 
efiects  for  the  benefit  of  Celine  Frances  Wissman,  wife  of  Frederick 
Wissman,  do  hereby  certify  that  a  certain  indenture  of  mortgage, 
bearing  date  the  twelfth  day  of  May,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty- seven,  made  and  executed  by  George  Irving  to  me, 
to  secure  the  payment  of  the  sum  of  fifteen  thousand  five  hundred 
dollars  and  sixty-one  cents,  on  the  10th  day  of  February,  1857,  which 
said  mortgage  is  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  county  of 
Queens,  in  Liber  —  of  Mortgages,  page  — ,  on  the  6th  day  of  July, 
in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven,  at  —  o'clock  in 

the ,  is  paid.    And  I  do  hereby  consent  that  the  same  be  discharged 

of  record.     Dated  the  9th  day  of  July,  1857. 

C.  F.  VAN  BLANKENSTYNE,        .      ^  . 

Irj  presence  of—  Trustee.     L    '    *  J 

James  W.  Hale. 


384  APPENDIX. 

State  of  New  York,  ) 

City  and  County  of  New  Yorh,  \ 

On  the  ninth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  fifty-seven,  before  me,  came  Cornelius  F.Van  Blankenstyne,  known 
to  me  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who  executed  the  above 
certificate,  and  acknowledged  that  he  executed  the  same  as  trustee,  as 
aforesaid. 

JAMES  W.  HALE, 

Commissioner  of  Deeds. 


ss. 


State  of  New  York, 
City  and  County  of  New  York, 

I,  Richard  B.  Connolly,  clerk  of  the  city  and  county  of  New  York? 
and  also  clerk  of  supreme  court  for  said  city  and  county,  being  a  court 
of  record_,  do  hereby  certify  that  James  W.  Hale,  whose  name  is  sub- 
scribed to  the  certificate  of  the  proof  or  acknowledgment  of  the  an- 
nexed instrument,  and  thereon  written,  was,  at  the  time  of  taking 
such  proof  or  acknowledgment,  a  commissioner  of  deeds  for  said  city 
and  county,  dwelling  in  the  said  city,  commissioned  and  sworn,  and 
duly  authorized  to  take  the  same  ;  and  further,  that  1  am  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  handwriting  of  such  commissioner,  and  verily  be- 
lieve that  the  signature  to  the  said  certificate  of  proof  or  acknowledg- 
ment is  genuine. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
[l.  s.  ]     seal  of  said  court  and  county,  the  9th  day  of  July,  1857. 

RICHARD  B.  CONNOLY, 

Clerk. 

Entered  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  on  the  10th 
day  of  July,  1857. 

S.  L.  SPADER,  Clerk. 

Queens  County,  ss. 

I,  Stephen  L.  Spader,  clerk  of  the  county  of  Queens,  do  hereby 
certify  that  I  have  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original,  and  that 
the  same  is  a  true  and  correct  transcript  thereof  and  the  whole  of  such 
original. 

Intestimony  where  of  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
[l.  s.  ]     seal  of  said  county,  this  12th  day  of  February,  1858. 

STEPHEN  L.  SPADER, 

Clerk. 


No.  16. 

Engineer  Department, 

Washington,  March  30,  1858. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  return  the  letter  of  Mr.  James  B.  Sheri- 
an,   clerk   of  the  House   committee   appointed   to   investigate   the 


APPENDIX.  385 

purchase  of  tlie  property  at  Willett's  Point,  in  which  a  call  is  made 
by  resolutions  of  the  committee,  for  copies  not  heretofore  furnished  of 
all  the  letters,  telegraphic  despatches,  and  papers  in  any  way  con- 
nected with  the  sale  and  purchase  of  the  property  at  Wilkins'  Point, 
duly  certified  for  the  use  of  the  committee ;  there  being  also  a  request 
for  information  whether  within  the  last  five  years  the  government  has 
purchased  any  land  in  New  York  harbor  other  than  that  at  Willett's 
Point,  and  if  so,  what  quantity,  the  price  jDaid  therefor,  and  for  what 
use  such  land  was  purchased. 

There  are  enclosed  herewith  certified  copies  of  a  letter,  dated  July 
8,  1857,  from  the  Engineer  Department  to  Lieutenant  Gillmore,  Corps 
i>f  Engineers,  and  of  his  reply,  dated  July  10,  1857.  These,  with  the 
series  heretofore  furnished  the  committee,  give  the  whole  correspond- 
ence, papers,  &c.,  to  he  found  in  this  office  upon  the  subject  of  the 
purchase  of  the  land  at  Willett's  Point  up  to  the  time  of  the  payment 
of  the  purchase  money,  excepting  the  title  papers,  a  list  of  which  has 
been  already  supplied. 

In  reply  to  the  second  point  of  inquiry,  I  have  the  honor  to  state 
that  on  the  14th  of  August,  1854,  a  tract  of  land,  embracing  51  acres, 
more  or  less,  was  purchased  from  Peter  Jacobson  for  $12,000.  On  the 
1st  of  September,  1857^  a  tract  of  land,  embracing  17  acres,  more  or- 
less,  as  determined  by  computation  from  the  plat  accompanying  the 
title  papers,  was  purchased  from  William  H.  Aspinwall  for  $42,500. 
Both  of  these  tracts  adjoin  land  previously  owned  by  the  United  States 
on  Staten  Island,  at  the  Narrows,  near  Fort  Tompkins,  and  were  pur- 
chased for  fortification  purposes,  their  possession  being  deemed  indis- 
pensable to  the  arrangement  of  a  proper  system  of  defensive  works  at 
this  locality.  No  other  purchase  of  land  in  New  York  harbor,  of 
which  this  office  has  any  knowledge,  has  been  made  within  the  last 
five  years. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers y  in  charge. 

Hon.  John  B.  Floyd, 

Secretary  of  War. 


No.  17. 

Engineer  Department, 
WasJiington,  April  29,  1858. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  27th  instant,  in  which  you  ask  for  a  copy  of  the  survey  lately 
made  by  the  government  at  Willett's  Point,  in  the  harborV  New 
York,  and  for  a  certified  copy  of  the  survey  furnished  by  Mr.  George 
Irving. 

The  map  of  the  government  survey  has  not  yet  been  received  here, 
but  the  officer  in  charge  will  be  at  once  requested  to  forward  the  origi- 
nal to  this  office  as  soon  as  possible,  and,  when  received,,  a  copy  will 
be  sent  to  your  committee  without  unnecessary  delay. 
H.  Rep.  Com.  549 25 


386  APPENDIX. 

I  enclose  herewith  a  certified  copy  of  the  sketch  which  accompanied 
Mr.  George  Irving' s  offer  to  the  Secretary  of  War  to  sell  to  the  United 
States  at  Willett's  Point.  A  copy  of  this  has  already  been  sent  to 
the  committee,  with  the  first  papers  on  the  subject  from  this  office. 

A  certified  copy  of  a  lithographic  ^'  Map  of  the  property  known  as 
Willett's  Neck,  situated  on  Long  Island  Sound,  surveyed  and  laid  out 
by  W.  Hexamer,  architect  and  surveyor/^'^  was  also  lately  sent  to  the 
committee,  in  compliance  with  a  request" jjaade  to  General  Totten,  and 
it  is  presumed  it  has  been  received.  This  last  map  was  received  here 
from  the  Attorney  General's  office,  enclosed  in  a  letter  of  Mr.  Gillett 
dated  July  10,  1857,  but  it  is  not  known  whether  or  not  it  came  origi- 
nally from  Mr.  George  Irving.  These  are  the  only  maps  in  this  de- 
partment relating  to  the  purchase. 

With  the  highest  respect^,  your  obedient  servant, 

H.  G.  WRIGHT, 
Captain  of  Engineers ,  in  charge. 

Hon.  John  B.  Ha  skin. 

Chairman  Select  Committee,  dc. ,  House  of  Bepresentatives. 


No.  18. 

Office  of  the  Assistant  Treasurer,  United  States, 

Neiu  York,  July  9,  1857. 

Eeceived  from  John  J.  Cisco,  assistant  treasurer  United  States,  at 
New  York,  the  payment  of  the  following  draft,  viz : 

No.  of  draft,  2329.— No.  of  warrant,  1589. 

July  8, 1857. 
Drawn  in  favor  of  Lieutenant  Q.  A.  Gillmore,  corps  engineers, 
$115,000,  (one  hundred  and  fifteen, thousand  dollars.) 
For  American  Exchange  Bank. 

JAMES  MURBY. 

[Endorsed.] 

Pay  to  the  order  of  George  Irving. 

Q.  A.  GILLMORE,  First  Lieut  Engineers. 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Richard  Schell. 

GEORGE  IRVING. 

Richard  Schell. 


lEx  ICtbrta 

SEYMOUR    DURST 


AVBRy 
DURST 


